Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A newbie question about enjoyment and pleasure
In the '4 noble truths' thread, @Dhamma Dhatu posted the following definition of 'craving' as defined by the Buddha:
"The origin of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is the craving that produces renewal of being accompanied by enjoyment and lust, and enjoying this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being."
Bearing this in mind, does being a Buddhist mean not taking pleasure in, for example, spending time with friends and family, good food and drink, making love with your spouse, a good book, watching a movie, playing a game...and so on? And moreover, does it mean not WANTING these things? Does it mean not being proactive in, for example, initiating sex or inviting a friend over for dinner, or splashing in puddles with your kids, just in case you might (gasp!) actually find it an enjoyable experience?
It may be that there is an entire layer of this that I've missed - in fact, I'm pretty much certain there is because otherwise Buddhism surely wouldn't have survived this long. My mind suggests to me that maybe the idea is not to stop enjoying and seeking out these simple pleasures altogether, but to do so in a way that doesn't grasp or cling to them, doesn't elevate them in importance over other types of experience and just makes the most of them in the present moment.
Any thoughts?
"The origin of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is the craving that produces renewal of being accompanied by enjoyment and lust, and enjoying this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being."
Bearing this in mind, does being a Buddhist mean not taking pleasure in, for example, spending time with friends and family, good food and drink, making love with your spouse, a good book, watching a movie, playing a game...and so on? And moreover, does it mean not WANTING these things? Does it mean not being proactive in, for example, initiating sex or inviting a friend over for dinner, or splashing in puddles with your kids, just in case you might (gasp!) actually find it an enjoyable experience?
It may be that there is an entire layer of this that I've missed - in fact, I'm pretty much certain there is because otherwise Buddhism surely wouldn't have survived this long. My mind suggests to me that maybe the idea is not to stop enjoying and seeking out these simple pleasures altogether, but to do so in a way that doesn't grasp or cling to them, doesn't elevate them in importance over other types of experience and just makes the most of them in the present moment.
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
As a lay Buddhist, you go at your own pace down the path. The idea is to lessen your attachments over time. There are a lot of pleasures that we do for the sake of that pleasure itself, and those are the things we eventually stop doing because we are no longer deluded by temporary pleasure; we find contentment in our ordinary experiences, be they painful or pleasurable.
Do as you like, as long as it's non-harm. Let the gradual path clear away what is unnecessary and leave what is.
The translations usually say "craving" and that's far different from either enjoying or looking forward to activities that are fun and we enjoy. We have a word in our language that Buddha did not have that is even closer to what he meant, from the context. Addiction.
People become addicted to what they find pleasure in, and try to fill their lives with only these things. Sadly, it's self-defeating and leads to suffering as do all addictions. For one thing, we end up only concerned with our own happiness. Thus, you hear about the pitfalls of "selfish desires". That is far different from saying we shouldn't enjoy happiness when possible.
Does this help?
But think about it, when you had to consider losing the things you mentioned you became defensive, anxious, angry, or possibly confused because you can't understand how these things could lead you to be unhappy ... which makes you unhappy. The reason that impermanent joys are ultimately disatisfying is because they are impermanent. We suffer because we take joy in that which will eventually be taken from us.
This does not mean that, as a lay Buddhist, you need to give up experiencing and taking pleasure in these fleeting joys. The path of renunciation which leads to nirvana/liberation/enlightenment is not an easy path to walk. As a lay practitioner you can practice the precepts, mindfulness, meditation, the accumulation of merit by performing acts of kindness and generosity that will lead to happy birth in this world and the next.
Remember that lasting joy is that joy which is unconditioned, unfettered, unbound, liberated, and deathless. Take refuge in the Buddha, in the Dharma, and in the Sangha and your actions will bear the fruit of peace and wellbeing.
all that matters is your relation to everything. suffering and craving will always exist. learning to accept and respond with mindfulness to what is in front of you is most important.
you can learn a lot about joy and suffering. just examine them. when you suffer, try to see why you suffer. when you enjoy something, try to see why you enjoy something.
see everything as it is rather than what you project it to be. life is to be enjoyed and happiness is very important! buddhism should help you to appreciate the aspects of life and wholesome states of mind which all lead to less suffering and happiness.
you will suffer and even if you're enlightened/awaken or whatever you will suffer still. lets be realistic, suffering is the normal condition of living this life and so is joy. wise up and learn how to relate accordingly to suffering/joy so that you may optimally live your life for the happiness of yourself and others.
I almost agreed with your post right up until this part: Based on dependent origination, the way that suffering can meet its cessation is carefully laid out by the one who achieved the cessation of suffering, the Buddha. There is no need to feel like your suffering is eternal. There is an end.
still people suffer and this body/mind suffers. since suffering is not mine and not lasting forever, i can relate to it realistically.
that is freedom and that is the end.
and by "i", "i" am speaking conventionally. hahahaha so many holes so many holes!
so in another sense a liberated mind/heart would fully feel suffering, happiness, sadness, etc. it would be like a thunderstorm. coming in quickly and hard and then leaving as if it wasn't there to begin with. isn't all our experience like this? until we grasp. when we grasp we try to reproduce it all because we want to control and construct identities, etc.
but what if we could feel total joy without attachment. it would come and it would be nice and it would go. such is the freedom of a buddha. a buddha acknowledges the whole human experience. all the negativity is transformed to be positive. for instance the suffering felt by the buddha would motivate the buddha to be compassionate and understanding of those who suffer. to feel the suffering of others as ones own suffer is important as this is what brings about compassionate action for another.
so back on topic. the idea is to enjoy what is in front of you and appreciate what is in front of you but not clinging onto anything because it will cause you suffering. allow the natural process to occur as it will occur regardless of how you cling/not cling to it. so buddhism is teaching us to wise up and realize how things are then from there we can see how we relate to things. we must start seeing what is and thus we stop clinging to stuff.
it's definitely work but if we just examine our lives it will be apparent that the three marks are quite obvious. enjoy life! see it for what it is!
peace and metta.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to convey in your post. Am I the samsaraputram? I'm not trying to argue at all. IMO, your pride seems to be a sign of attachment to self-view. Not that I'm not trying to insult you in any way; I have attachment to self-view too.
Anyways, I'm out for the evening. Maybe we could continue this conversation tomorrow?
With love
-T
glad there are backups ::
@Talisman
it is not an insult;
samsāraputra - srotapanna - sakadagami - anāgami - buddha/arhat - samyak buddha/10th bhumi bodhisattva
At least, that's my view. I think the view that we must give up all life's pleasures in order to end suffering, but that only monks can actually do this while lay-people are left to stray in darkness, is faulty, and that in any case it can only have the effect of making Buddhism less and less relevant to more and more people. I don't mean to offend anyone, I just mean to give my view.
I think it's easy to take things too literally in buddhism and label "wanting" itself as a bad thing.
That doesn't mean everyone has to cut out seeking enjoyment/pleasure from their lives (like sex, watching TV and other things that are normal for humans in modern times), it only means that the seeking/craving of enjoyment/pleasure is as much a source of suffering as the avoidance of pain. We just don't see that at first... we try to be happy, to not be unhappy, but do not realize that our craving in both instances is the reason for all of our suffering.
Lay Buddhists can live their lives pretty much the same as people of no religion or of other religions... it's not always a lay Buddhist's goal to actually realize Nirvana in this life. Some simply keep to the precepts, as best they can, and go no further. There's no hard-and-fast answer that applies to everyone, which is why Buddhism fits so many different types of practitioners. I prefer it that way myself.
Buddha "wanted" to liberate people. I "want" to practice buddhism. I "want" to meditate. I "want" my son to be happy. I "want" to be healthy. I "want" to eat delicious food.
Aren't we just playing with semantics here.. or am I missing something?
Craving runs our lives. We're always wanting this or that, and even when it's not necessary we're unhappy with our current circumstances and seek out other circumstances. We can't stay still because we're always unsatisfied, which is our dukkha/suffering, and we try to quench that by fulfulling wants... but that's also a part of our dukkha. We feed the fire, instead of aiming our minds toward the alleviation of suffering through the cessation of craving, which is exactly what the Buddha taught.
To walk the path a fire for cessation must burn, but walking the path is to fetch water to douse all fires. Otherwise, we're lighting fires all of our lives with no end in sight.
Walking the path is the gradual cultivation of detachment from the craving that forces you to seek enjoyment and avoid pain, to be at peace with all circumstances.
Perhaps there's a subtlety that I can't convey here.
"...wanting is the bad thing..."
But wanting is only a bad thing in the first place if you need to want...
"Lay Buddhists can live their lives pretty much the same as people of no religion or of other religions..."
Making Buddhism utterly irrelevant to them...
Like I said, lay Buddhists can practice as they choose. That's the whole point I was making earlier that we each choose how we walk the path and to what end. Not a great percentage are seeking Nirvana, I wouldn't think. There's a great deal of Buddhists who simply adhere to some basics but don't put the effort into purifying their karma yada yada. "Buddhist" is a very vague definition to put on anyone, or for anyone to assume, since it has such a varying practitioner-base.
Buddhism has two levels of teaching: (1) for monks and (2) for laypeople
The Buddha recommended to laypeople (who asked him) to enjoy themselves within the boundaries of the five precepts (google, for example, Samajivina Sutta and Anana Sutta).
However, his higher teachings, for the most part taught to monks, remain diagnostic expressions of natural truth.
In other words, the higher teachings are not "shoulds" and "should nots" but descriptions of the realities of suffering & freedom from suffering.
So if we enjoy ourself, with good food & drink, making love with our spouse, etc, the seeds of suffering are existent there because separation from these things we love must bring some suffering.
Thus, in the 2nd Noble Truth, the Buddha diagnosed the cause of suffering.
However, in his life, teachings & religion, he did not insist all beings pursue complete freedom from suffering.
Why? Because attaining complete freedom from suffering is not easy and many human beings must (due to their nature) live with spouse, engage in sexual relations, etc
Personally, I doubt one can indulge in sensual & filial enjoyment, such as making love with one's spouse, and not be attached to that.
The Buddha certainly, for the most part, did not teach one could indulge in various enjoyments and be free from suffering (google, for example, Piyavagga and Piyajatika Sutta).
Kind regards
DD
Vincenzi is speaking what he believes to be true
:thumbsup:
Any further confrontational remarks are simply going to be removed, and the offenders shortly thereafter. This is far from proper behavior on the forum, much less Buddhism for Beginners. Those who can't get along, just stop talking to one another, period. It seems offense can not be avoided, so let's just avoid the possibility altogether, yes?
Back to topic people...
Again, I don't mean to be offensive, I just mean to give my view. My view is that the Buddha was the first word on the cessation of suffering via transcendence of 'I', but the not the last. Someone might as well quote Charles Darwin talking about how traits are inherited via a 'blending' process, to refute all Darwinists who believe traits are actually inherited via genes. But that's just me.
however, the Buddha described Nirvana as the destruction of craving
best wishes
It seemed that Prometheus was interpreting it that all buddhists and buddhism contribution to the human world ought to be in total darkness of despair in order to resonate correctly with inherent Buddha teachings of 4NT. :rarr:
Buddha tried the path of rejecting the pleasures that life had to offer when he starved himself as a forest asthetic. In the end he left it for the middle way. Neither cling to nor reject. For people just beginning to explore Buddhism, the difference between letting go of selfish desires and rejecting the world is confusing.
My advice is to not worry about it. Eventually, you'll find your own understanding.
If we are new to Buddhism, it is very important to not use the various teachings as a vehicle for judging ourself & placing unnecessary pressures upon ourself.
The Buddha's teachings are diverse to meet the needs of the diversity of humanity.
Some of us are struggling to accept that beings that have cultivated deep levels of meditative bliss and liberation do not enjoy ordinary enjoyments because to them these things are unenjoyable
If we develop a taste for fine food & wine, we lose enjoyment towards ordinary food & wine
The spiritual path is the same. The more the mind moves towards Nirvana, the more it ceases to enjoy grosser/coarser forms of pleasure
Kind regards
I'm 28 years old and have just started to walk this path. There is much in my past that is painful and much of it was indeed related to desire and the resultant suffering. This I could see without ever having read a Buddhist text or talked to a Buddhist, although I may not have worded it exactly like that.
Since meditating and pondering the desire-suffering cycle in more depth, I am actually taking MORE pleasure in my life, not less. The sense of urgency has gone; I'm no longer always worried about the pleasurable experience ending because I know for a fact it will and I'm OK with that. It's a bit of a paradox to me right now, but it's a fun one!
I think, for now, I am going to concentrate on where I'm at in the present and let whatever happens, happen. If at some point I decide that full renunciation is necessary for my development as a spiritual being, I have that option. But I also understand that it is OK not to take that option.
I am probably going to form attachments along the way - but I believe I am on the way to developing better ways of dealing with them in order to minimise the resultant suffering. Given that I am only just getting started and infinity is...well...infinite, I may not achieve nirvana or escape from rebirth this time around. And so what? What law says I have to? I've literally got all the time in the world.
Ok, though I feel like I must repeat myself... but I won't. Peace.
I acknowledge what you said. But craving is the preceding condition for the arising of the "I".
Buddha went beyond transcending the "I". Buddha ended craving.
Further, it can be difficult to transend the "I" if one cannot manage craving.
Ordinarily, it is not craving that creates karma (acting) but intention & attachment.
If there is craving for ice-cream, it is the "I" that generally arises to indulge in it.
Imo, the genuine absence of "I" will result only in necessity rather than indulgence.
With metta DD
:thumbsup:
However, I don't dispute that craving is the problem, I just take craving to be about need rather than want. We may want something, but if we don't need it in order to be happy then our happiness will naturally survive the passing of that thing. The fact that 'craving' is a better translation than 'desire' is precisely why I don't feel I'm arguing with the 4NT.
On a perhaps little related note, you mentioned something I've seen conflicting views about. Does craving give rise to 'I', or does 'I' give rise to craving? See, I thought the whole point of transcending 'I' was to end craving, meaning that 'I' is the preceding condition for craving, not the other way around. After all, there can be no selfish craving without an 'I' to do the selfish craving. Otherwise, what's the point of transcending 'I'?
The problem is that grasping mind places things as objects of the wish which are unsatisfying things. For example we may wish for a degree or a house or whatever. Its not wrong to have those things, but they aren't satisfying of dukkha dimension. Buddha didn't have a house or a degree.
I know that my craving is still there and that is the reason. Nonetheless I have no release I feel so much pain. It feels as if I cannot meditate because I want to distract myself. There is a lot of fear to meditate. I am thinking so unclearly at these times that I literaly cannot understand written organized teachings. Maybe so much pain that I cannot read a paragraph and think what it means... it seems like it is taking forever and the pain is so much.
I think the pain is that my chi is not flowing correctly, but I do not know a remedy.
What I do in these situations is go back and forth between activities and attempt to just feel how I feel without constructing a situation a 'self' and something I have to do. It is hard to get it to work but I have moments of flashes of feeling better. But for example I might feel dullness in my body and try to feel my body but it is not liberating somehow because its like I am trying to construct an 'out' to my predicament.
Personally, I regard someone that has overcome craving not to be a "saint" but to be a "freak"
With metta