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.
The nature of friendship
The Buddha taught about sensual pleasure and how it is a hinderance in the pursuit of happiness. Lately, I have been considering how people experience pleasure from being with their friends. It strikes me that, apart from perhaps feeling pleasure from collaboration and intellectual discourse, one also feels pleasure from seeing smiles, hearing certain tones of voice etc. If true, this could lead one to be addicted to these sensations in the same way that one is addicted to other sensual pleasures. There is some evidence for this, e.g. Harry Harlow's classical monkey experiments.
Indeed, consider that when faced with the choice of lying to make a friend smile and telling that friend a mildly unpleasant truth that does not threaten the friendship in any way, the person who derives more pleasure from the smile might be more tempted to lie (or so I presume, given personal experience). If this is true, it follows that, in order to be more honest to others, one must be willing to give up the desire for being smiled at.
What does everyone think? Is there a sensual basis for friendship that goes alongside a purely intellectual basis? I am particularly interested in answers from those who believe they have completely gone beyond sensual pleasure.
Indeed, consider that when faced with the choice of lying to make a friend smile and telling that friend a mildly unpleasant truth that does not threaten the friendship in any way, the person who derives more pleasure from the smile might be more tempted to lie (or so I presume, given personal experience). If this is true, it follows that, in order to be more honest to others, one must be willing to give up the desire for being smiled at.
What does everyone think? Is there a sensual basis for friendship that goes alongside a purely intellectual basis? I am particularly interested in answers from those who believe they have completely gone beyond sensual pleasure.
0
Comments
I believe that it is a misunderstanding of what the Buddha meant; when we think that 'enjoyment' and 'attachment' are the very same animal.
It is because things are impermanent, that we must be willing to enjoy things/people with the understanding that EVERYTHING is temporary only, and allow everything to flow and change.
Friendship, depending upon how deep a friendship it is, is holistic and thus touches on every part of your very being, including the sensual, like you so rightly have noticed.
Wanting someone to smile is no more wrong than wanting your next breath is wrong. It is purely natural. Its what comes after this, that gets a little tricky. As in doing wrong things for right reasons (AKA "the ends justify the means").
This is not something that has a black and white answer. We must stay alert every moment. Watch the outcomes.
For instance, if you have to be someone other than who you are, does your friend liking this pretend person really mean anything at/all? Isn't it then, a pretend friendship?
Don’t settle for a false coin.
This does not however mean that we should be HARSH in our honesty.
Warm Regards,
S9
And you think this is a hindrance, because.....?
I'm slightly more elevated than a monkey, so have learnt that whilst the pleasure is present, it is fleeting. Like a smile, for example....
Then that's your problem.
Your attachment to the experience of seeing the smile, versus your breaking of the 4th precept. (I vow to refrain from false speech and idle gossip....allied, I would suppose, with the Third 'signpost' on the eightfold Path. Right Speech.)
No.
One must give up attachment to that desire.
I think you need to think this out again, because your question is flawed...
And who do you think that would be - a monk?
I see them smile more than anyone!
F: I think you need to think this out again, because your question is flawed...
S9: Just a tiny point: there is no question that is flawed. Every question if asked sincerely is a precious jewel. Every question is a new beginning.
If we worry too much about how we will sound when asking anything, it may discourage us from reaching out to others for help. This would indeed be a sad day, and perhaps a dead-end. : ^ (
Respectfully yours,
S9
But the question itself IS flawed, because the OP has misunderstood the Buddha's teaching.
he states:
The Buddha did not teach this.
therefore, the whole basis of his ensuing enquiry, is flawed.
You're searching for an arahant, and on an online forum?
If you're attached to wanting to SEE everyone smile rather than wanting what's truly best for them and wanting them to be truly happy, then yes, that would be a problem. Wanting for them to smile in the long run, wanting what's best for them and for them to be truly happy, might leave you telling an unpleasant truth for their own good. What's important, is that your acts are selfless, and in their best interest. There is such things as selfless desire; the Buddha wished to teach the Dhamma for the benefit of us all, he hoped for us all to truly smile, and indeed, those further along the path seem to smile MORE, not less. Desire is not a problem. Clinging/craving/attachment is the problem.
Aristotle said that we all (every single one of us) wishes to be happy. But, some of us are misdirected as to what will bring this about. Or even, I might add, some of us have no real conception what happiness actually is.
I don’t think that there is any such thing as 'selfless desire.' (Perhaps if you are 100% Realized it might be different, but that is not likely in the average slob) I would be interested in knowing just what selfless desire might be, outside of pretending that we are saints. Which we are not.
If something benefits us ALL, then it also benefits our personal self as well, by definition.
My 2 cents anyway,
S9
F: No, you misunderstand: That he asked the question, is not flawed.
But the question itself IS flawed, because the OP has misunderstood the Buddha's teaching.
S9: Quite so. But don’t you remember in school, where kids were afraid to ask questions, because they were afraid that they would look stupid? This is what I wish to prevent.
Didn’t we all misunderstand in the beginning? And how many of us are 100% beyond that now?
Certainly, not me! As hard as that is to believe, I know. ; ^ )
Please forgive me if I am hurting your feelings.
Respectfully,
S9
Where did I claim to be a saint, and where did I say that the goal is sainthood?
Thank you for clarifying that point for us all. :crazy:
Who said otherwise?
There is, for example, a desire to do charitable work to make yourself feel good or to gain brownie points with The Big Guy or something.
Then there is a desire to do charitable work because you have compassion for others and wish for them to be free form suffering. This is selfless desire in one sense of the word.
Now, for any of us, there is no such thing as truly selfless desire, because we are still bound to self-illusion, and even with the best intentions, we still do not see clearly. By definition, an awakened being is free of this delusion. This is selfless desire in another sense.
A desire for others to find true peace and happiness, a desire of one who has realized anatta, is a desire for one's own benefit?
If something benefits us, then it benefits us. But we weren't talking about that.
No one said he was stupid. Pointing out that a question itself is flawed is sometimes neccesary and beneficial to the person who asked it. In fact, the Buddha did this quite often.
S9: But then, it would make you feel good to see less suffering. Oh no, all is ruined.
I should not desire people to be free of suffering. What if it is good for them to suffer, and I am being selfish, stealing away their much needed lessons?
Or you might like yourself for being kind, which would make you feel even better. How do I get my dog-gone ego-self out of this equation? Don’t even mention merit here, or I’ll cry. Don’t you see the impossibility in what you are suggesting?
M: Now, for any of us, there is no such thing as truly selfless desire, because we are still bound to self-illusion, and even with the best intentions, we still do not see clearly. By definition, an awakened being is free of this delusion. This is selfless desire in another sense.
S9: Perhaps one of the illusions is that there is such a thing as selfless desire? What if we just see the ego self isn’t us, and neither is the desire? Wouldn't that make more sense?
M: A desire for others to find true peace and happiness, a desire of one who has realized anatta, is a desire for one's own benefit?
(See above) Don’t think that ego reaches anatta. If desire is a function of ego than it has nothing to do with anatta, does it?
Peace,
S9
You are not reading what I'm saying. There is no point in me responding to the first part of your post. You are making things up to argue about.
Ego.. reaches anatta.. what? What do you think anatta means..? And what does ego mean to you?
M: Ego.. reaches anatta.. what?
S9: See my original quote, please.
Do you have something to add that may clarify this issue?
Kind Regards,
S9
__________________
First of all, the poster is an adult, not a child.
secondly, I don't think that as a person practising Buddhism, posting on a Buddhist forum, he's going to expect people to either think him stupid, or the question stupid.
And thirdly, there was never any mention of the term 'stupid' so it's important we do not become deflected form your issue here, by introducing new and differing terminology.
You said 'stupid'
I never mentioned stupidity.
I merely pointed out the question is flawed.
I even clarified after your initial comment.
But you're persisting in insisting that my response is in danger of belittling the OP.
I've made it quite clear - twice now - that you are in error, there.
Fourthly - I think that you are being somewhat presumptuous on behalf of the OP if you think he would believe himself belittled or trivialised by my response. or anyone else's for that matter.....
What's your point here?
isn't this precisely the reason we take pains to explain things to people who post questions?
to clarify and clear up misunderstandings?
And where is anybody claiming they ARE 100% beyond it?
I'm amazed that you are able to create such diverse discussions and tangential dialogue without any original stimulus....
You make up situations as you go along, by adding two and two and coming up with 27....
No, of course you're not hurting my feelings.... But I find your elaborations puzzling, and your discourse on issues where previously there were no issues, intriguing.....
And by the way......you really are going to have to learn how to use the 'quote' function, S9.....;)
I would never claim to have gone completely beyond sensual pleasure, but we have all experienced times when we simply showed up, saw what was going on, did what needed to be done, and accepted the results, and all of this took place without any emotional content driving it. Buddhist practice stabilizes such a state of mind, so that more and more it becomes the primary way of relating to life. For someone in this state of mind, everyone is a friend.
A friendship with some kind of sensual basis is <i>ipso facto</i> selfish, and will lead to disappointment of one kind or another. That's not to say friendship is undesirable, even if it has such a basis. But it's not where Buddhist practice is pointing.
I honestly find this confusing.
Could you explain what friendship without any emotional content might be like?
Didn't Buddha love Ananda?
Respecrfully,
S9
As long as we live and breathe, we take as much as we give. It took me many years to come to terms with this. Life consumes life. Until such time as our bonds to this material existence are truly cut, we cannot ever live completely selflessly. Though our minds may be liberated, our bodies surely are not.
This is in no way to be considered a failing, or fault. In our practice, we come to realize there is no self, yet at the same time, we know we exist on some level (cogito ergo sum). Selflessness is more of an expansion of self than an elimination. We work to extinguish those qualities we have learned are not our real selves. What, then, are we ultimately left with? Nothing; and everything. This is the portion of our experience that transcends words; the inexpressible "suchness" of each passing moment, the space between the ticking of the clock that neither moves nor stands still. It is here that the self melts away into the sea of universal life. The understanding that comes from this experience remains long after the experience fades. So, although we return to our mundane lives, we do so with a fresh perspective.
When I see the suffering of another, I see my own suffering. When I see joy, it is my joy, too. By helping others, I help myself. By helping myself, I help others. The reward is mine, either way.
Addressing the topic of the post, friendships come and go. I love my friends, but I don't need them near me to enjoy them. Space is an illusion. To me, having a friend in the next room is no different than having a friend on the other side of the planet. What is distance to love and friendship? I may enjoy spending time with them when they are near, but I also enjoy spending time with them when they are far.
At the moment, I am spending quality time with about 7 billion of my closest friends.
~ AD
I can only speculate about Gotama and Ananda, but I would guess that while sensual pleasure did arise from their companionship, it didn't motivate it, at least on Gotama's end. He loved Angulimala during their first meeting, too, or at least Angulimala thought he did.
Your post does not explain to me what your understanding of the word "anatta" nor "ego" is, otherwise I would not have asked. I can assume, but I'd rather not.
Your argument was based on the following supposition: that I think a desire for one's self to be happy is bad/wrong/whatever, period (never said such a thing).
In any event, we are talking solely about the desire itself. If someone has a desire for others to be free of suffering, that is selfless. If seeing others free of suffering makes one happy, the desire was still for others to be free of suffering, not to make one happy. There is nothing wrong with the fact that it made one happy, but that change the fact that the desire itself was selfless.
AriettaDolente,
Right, and for an unenlightened person, there is a "self" to exclude. Much like when the Buddha was asked, "if there is no self, then who receives the [fruits of one's kamma]?" - this would be an example of a flawed questions based on wrong understanding, and an example of the Buddha pointing out a flawed question.
In everyday conversation, I would say "The desires of an awakened being are selfless," and hopefully you would understand what I mean. If need be, understand it to mean "a desire of a being who has realized anatta."
We all know what people mean when they say "selfless." Not interested in getting hung up on words (like labels) and going all zen.
Already addressed this in my response to S9.
I understand what you're saying and don't disagree. But a very simple statement is being needlessly over-complicated.
Now why did everyone get so hung up on one word?
My post wasn't aimed in any particular direction. I simply offered my own insight into the topic, with the hope that some might find it useful. It doesn't appear that we disagree (at least not in any way that matters), so please take it with a grain of salt.
~ AD
Thank you for your last posting. I found it very uplifting, and full of wisdom, and as smooth as silk. To me your words are very nourishing, and often mirror my own experience.
Incidentally, I personally don’t see clarifying details as complexity at/all. Very often clarifying details actually work towards eliminating the complexity of confusion. That is exactly what you have managed to do with your words, here.
Warm regards,
S9
We do not always recognize ourselves in the surface levels of others. In fact, if we remain too surface in our definitions of others, inevitably there is conflict, sooner or later.
Friendship only happens, when we feel safe and comfortable enough to allow others to travel more deeply into us, past our protective armor.
Very often, if we relax and allow it to happen, then we are able to see more deeply into the heart of the other persons. Our difference grow smaller when we do this, and often diminish to complete none existence if we are able to travel deep enough.
Everyone wants to be loved, and appreciated, and everyone gets a full share of pain, grief, and confusion. We can find these truths just below the very surface of every life. The deeper we travel into these others, the closer we come to finding our very own self.
In the narrow definitions of this world, which remain very surface, we may feel cheated, or our very personhood may not seem nourishing enough to satisfy us. But, like you say AD, as we remove the restrictions of narrow definition, we seem to become FULL of satisfaction. We need not quibble any longer over the scraps, with our brothers and sister.
So, why is the ego-self condemned to desire? Because the ego-self is condemned to live on the more surface levels.
Sincerely,
S9
Also, Mundus, I can see no difference between craving and desire, unless by "desire", you mean "intention".
Fivebells, I am wondering how the four immeasurables can be experienced in the absence of emotion. How would one know whether he is experiencing metta etc. without any sensory feedback?
Jnana (according to wiki) is a “meditative state of profound stillness.”
In other words it is a trance state, which I doubt many people can carry off in their daily life, while walking and working.
So yes, than any distraction would be an obstruction, even pleasure, or holding on to a lack of pleasure as if it were a special thought,might also be a distraction while meditating in this way.
But, please remember that, there are many different ways to meditate. Not all of them aim directly at the profound stillness of the mind. Some meditations allow the mind to play like a little puppy and simply watch it. (Wu Wei)
Am I missing something here? Is Jnani one of those words that means several things? (I bet 5 bells knows)
I see no possible way to carry off 'a state of profound stillness, outside of a trance, without the complete Realization that (ego) self and experience simply are not you. Pleasure than would not be a particularly worse problem than any other attachment, (AKA “Wrongful Identification.”)
Hope you enjoy my post, Smile!
S9
Nope, I don't think we do. I think earlier in the discussion much more was read into what I said than what was intended, and the whole thing veered off-topic. My words are short (and blunt) sometimes, but it's because I'm a lazy typer after working with my hands all day.
anvilsmith,
Yes, that's another way to put it.
I think it would be better to say that sensuality is an obstruction, period. Sensuality as in feeling "pleasure, displeasure, or neither pleasure nor displeasure." Going beyond sensual pleasure/desire is going beyond sensual aversion and indifference as well. Contact without ignorance.
My knowledge of this kind of thing is actually pretty shallow. For linguistic stuff, you're better off asking Dhamma Dhatu or Mundus. (Or ideally stuka, but he's been banned from this forum.)
Thanks anyway.
Smiles,
S9
M: “Contact without ignorance.” S9: …is a good way to put it. But, by being that brief about what ignorance actually is…you might as well be speaking in tongues for anyone new to this avenue.
Do you want to elucidate on what you believe ignorance is?
S9
I'm afraid I have to disagree with the trance state description of jhana. I think of a trance state as a half-conscious state, like a stupor. I don't think that's what jhana is.
Either way, ignore both my posts. I shouldn't actually be discussing these things. I don't have a working knowledge of them and shouldn't have piped up.
Sorry for interrupting. Please...continue.
I was just, (am always), glad to see your gentle, loving face.
Actually, there is a very good chance that you know more about sitting meditation than I do. No, I am not pulling your leg. I am still learning.
Meditation was not my main path, more a secondary side to my path. So please, do butt in and often.
Honestly, just who you are as a person is a lesson to me.
Warm Regards,
S9
I originally followed the path of the mind, was a seeker of truth through my mental processes. Words were actually a BIG tool for me. Mindfulness of my life and person was also a big part of that, although I did know its name then.
After a while I begin to notice that mind (analytical) leads to meditation, and meditation leads to surrender, and surrender lead to love and devotion, and devotion leads to solitude, (AKA “You are alone with the Alone.”
This whole thread, in my estimation, is poppycock. Federica is the only one who makes sense and people attack her for being too "harsh" rather than spot-on. The very idea that "selfless desire" is nonexistent baffles me. If you love anyone and wish them well, that is selfless desire.
The healthy heart desires that all be well. It is only the heart engrossed in an unhealthy emotional state that desires otherwise.
As for me, I enjoy a sincere smile just as much as the other guy. However, I also believe the fact that I also enjoy seeing the beauty of the human form does not in any way make me fall off the spiritual path. I see these sorts of things as "add-ons" rather than attachments or otherwise. True, such thrilling things can cause one to scatter his or her energies, but not necessarily.
We can agree to disagree, but I just had to speak up. I love people, both living and dead, for what they are/were, not for any benefit I may derive from them. To admire someone is not self-ish, but is essentially engrossment in the other.