Can a Buddhist be hedonistic?

Lostie

From wiki: Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).

Are Buddhism and hedonism mutually exclusive? Pardon me if this question has been asked before.

Victorious

A Buddhist is a Hedonist that is in search of the ultimate pleasure. Nibbana.
At least for us Theravadians...

Dandelion

I like @Victorious response, I would never have considered answering the question like that. I also think about 'the middle way' too, which I suppose also doesn't really support hedonsim from a Buddhist P.O.V but non the less @Victorious I feel is correct in his statement.

Invincible_summer

In almost every instance, "hedonism" refers to sense pleasures, yes? Then I'd say it's definitely out of line with the Dharma.

Zero

Are Buddhism and hedonism mutually exclusive?

Yes.

Buddhism doesnt strive to maximise net pleasure - it eliminates suffering.

Iñigo

Pleasure itself isn't the issue, in my opinion. Pleasure is sense stimulation or the anticipaton or recollection of stimulation. Pleasure is a part of interacting with the world around us; even eating fruit can be a pleasure.

The issue is clinging and desire for something. Both can cause our minds to propell us into action. Action has always a reaction and that reaction may (or may not) be stressful (dukkha) to us. If we choose to avoid stressful results then we need to be mindful of why we act and that which propells us to act. In this case it could be the cliniging for pleasure or the desire for pleasure which makes us act despite us knowing that it could lead to suffering or stress for us or others.

ownerof1000oddsocks

even eating fruit can be a pleasure.

lol, what sort of fruit are you eating? The stuff I get is pretty good, but it isn't >>>all about the sensation<<

it is deferred gratification, or what comes after!

-Instant gratification is about temporarily alleviating suffering. Hedonism?
-Deferred gratification is about getting good results. Buddhism?

Iñigo

Hi OwernofSocks
lol. Of course I would prefer chocolate over strawberries, but a 5 mile run to burn off the extra calories is suffering for me :-)

I would say hedonism is looking for gratification before anything else. I think you are right that buddhism would advocate deffering gratification or facing less pleasent responsiblities which may result in good results.

Victorious

Here is a better article about Hedonism. It is in Swedish so you might want to run it through google or babel or something.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

Hedonism is not as simple as the first description in the english wiki article leads you to beieve.

I consider myself a Buddhist and a Hedonist. In fact I will go as far as to say that being hedonistic is the base of every sentient action among humans and animals.

There is no way a unenlightened person can knowingly take a course of action that will diminish his/her pleasure.

/Victor

seeker242

Let thy desire flourish,
In order to let thy heart forget the beatifications for thee.
Follow thy desire, as long as thou shalt live.

If that quote from the wikipedia page sums it up, sure, a Buddhist can be hedonist. However, they really would not be practicing Buddhism as it was taught by the Buddha.

RichardH

No.

RichardH

A Buddhist is a Hedonist that is in search of the ultimate pleasure. Nibbana.
At least for us Theravadians...

Maybe other Theravadins can comment on this? ....Would you say this is so?

person

There is pleasure when a sore is scratched,
But to be without sores is more pleasurable still;
There are pleasures in worldly desires,
But to be without desires is more pleasurable still.

-Nagarjuna (The Precious Garland)

RichardH

A wise friend used to say.. "It's not about having an experience, but whatever experience is present" The unconditioned is realized in/as all conditions.. whether they are pleasurable or painful... and is beyond pain and pleasure.

The different ways of speaking could just be different ways of speaking...

and..... different strokes for different folks.

betaboy

There is no happiness outside of the happiness that comes from material objects. So hedonism is inevitable. Buddhism can be added to hedonism to help us temper it, that's all.

Victorious

Yes... For me I think it is because I find that cultivating the path, gives me the most pleasureable life experince I feel I can ever have, that I do it.

If the Path was net painful I would avoid it.

If the Path was less pleasurable than something else I would prioritize it lower than I do.

Cultivating is in this case unfortunatley a focusing of the ego. Selfpreservation more or less.

Butt as they say in Sweden 'Everyones taste is like your hindquarters...seperated.'

.

/Victor

RichardH

There is no happiness outside of the happiness that comes from material objects. So hedonism is inevitable. Buddhism can be added to hedonism to help us temper it, that's all.

hi betaboy.

First of all I want to thank you for helping me procrastinate...as I have a daunting project to do today and need an excuse to avoid it as long as possible.. Your post will do in a pinch.

Assuming you do not mean material objects in a gronk-like way. Lets look at that..
... By material object I take it you mean objects of mind including non-material things ....mental and emotional things....and things of the imagination..

No subject..no object.. kind of like up and down. so happiness and sadness are things that come with objects of awareness, not withstanding the bliss of absorbtions ..with are actually dualistic ..just subtle

..... uh what was I saying again... hmm 12pm... should go do things.

In a nutshell IMHO Buddhism isnt just a temperer .. rer and going to a flesh and blood teacher in any tradition Theravada... Zen.... Tibetan .. etc. is better than internet blabbers like me...and will give you a good sense of the point of buddhism... not Buddhism lite .. but the Buddhism that is the the core of peoples lives.

person

There is no happiness outside of the happiness that comes from material objects. So hedonism is inevitable. Buddhism can be added to hedonism to help us temper it, that's all.

That explains why monks are always so miserable. :wtf:

pokey

Yes, of course it can.

Jason

From wiki: Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).

Are Buddhism and hedonism mutually exclusive? Pardon me if this question has been asked before.

Not necessarily. It all depends on what you mean by hedonism, however. If we're talking about the hedonism of Epicurus, then I'd say that there are a lot of similarities between that and the middle way of Buddhism (i.e., the middle way between the two extremes of self-mortification and self-indulgence). For example, Epicurus' philosophy was aimed at attaining ataraxia, peace of mind and freedom from fear, and aponia, the absence of pain, via a system of ethics, rational thinking/contemplation, and a secluded, moderate lifestyle. His hedonism wasn't so much unlimited indulgence in sensual pleasures as it was about balance.

Epicurus himself held that the absence of pain was the highest pleasure (compare that to the idea of nibbana being the highest bliss a la Dhp 202-04), and he favoured static pleasure over dynamic pleasure. The difference is explained by Bertrand Russell in A History of Western Philosophy using hunger as an example:

Dynamic pleasures consist in the attainment of a desired end, the previous desire having been accompanied by pain. Static pleasures consist in a state of equilibrium, which results from the existence of the kind of state of affairs that would be desired if it were absent. I think one may say that the satisfying of hunger, while it is in progress, is a a dynamic pleasure while, but the state of quiescence which supervenes when hunger is completely satisfied is a static pleasure. Of these two kinds, Epicurus holds it more prudent to pursue the second, since it is unalloyed, and does not depend upon the existence of pain as a stimulus to desire. When the body is in a state of equilibrium, there is no pain; we should, therefore, aim at equilibrium and the quiet pleasures rather than the more violent joys. Epicurus, it seems, would wish, if it were possible, to be always in the state of having eaten moderately, never in that of voracious desire to eat.

This doesn't mean, of course, that you constantly stuff your face, but that you eat moderately, just enough to keep the body from experiencing the pain of hunger but not so much that it experiences the pain of overeating. In fact, Epicurus himself, contrary to popular belief, bordered on asceticism, renouncing sex and living off of little more than bread and cheese. The Buddha had a similar attitude towards food (among other things), as well. For example, from AN 4.37:

And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

If you're talking about hedonism in the modern sense, however, which usually refers to an overindulgent lifestyle, then I'd say the answer is no, Buddhism isn't philosophically compatible with that kind of hedonism (Snp 4.1). And neither is Epicureanism, for that matter.