Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Experiencing pleasure after enlightenment

TheJourneyTheJourney
edited February 2011 in Philosophy
This is a continuation of a conversation from another thread. Do you guys believe that upon enlightenment, being able to accept the moment as it is, seeing the perfection, you no longer care if bad things happen to you and you no longer desire everyday pleasures? This seems to be a fairly common buddhist idea. But in my opinion they are settling for a lower truth. Accepting only the good, nirvana, is not accepting reality as it is, because you are denying samsara. In order to truly accept reality as it is, you must accept and see the perfection of all of it. That means samsara too. If you can truly see that, then you are free to engage in the pleasures of samsara. Just remember all that you learned that got you to that point. Let the teachings serve their purpose.
«1

Comments

  • CloudCloud Veteran
    Depends upon your definition. The Buddha's definition of enlightenment is beyond both pleasure and pain, seeking neither yet not being averse to either at the same time. There's no longer any thirst to seek out experiences of happiness, and in the dying of that thirst there is ultimate peace; imperturbability.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    Right. It's the concept found within taoism of action through inaction. Upon enlightenment, if you so desire you can learn how to master samsara. All I mean by that is that you learn to fulfill the desires of your ego without really asserting your ego. That is how you get everything. Ego and Egoless. Nirvana and samsara. All of the pleasures that are possible.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    That's your version of enlightenment TJ. :D
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    Right. There is no true definition of enlightenment. I say that all that exists is enlightenment, but people don't believe me.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    "True definition" can be misleading. Buddhists have a very concise definition of what enlightenment is "not", and seeking pleasures is part of what it's not... in the Buddhist definition. This is a Buddhist forum, and if you're happy with what you've found and like to call it enlightenment that's up to you, but to a Buddhist it doesn't fit the definition. That's all.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    Right. I don't care. I'm just presenting my views. They can choose to do with it as they wish, ignore it, mock it, whatever. I'm just talkin. Besides, my views are very consistent with zen buddhism.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    What I mean is that it's confusing from a Buddhist standpoint. :)
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    I edited my post. My ideas are very consistent with zen buddhism. "Buddhism" is just a label. We use it in pursuit of the truth, but it is not the truth. The buddha taught this.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    In the Buddhist definition of enlightenment, what you said is precisely the case: "you no longer care if bad things happen to you and you no longer desire everyday pleasures".
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    Right. But you can still enjoy sensual pleasures if they come up. You don't force it, you don't let your ego take over, but if something comes up you don't have to deny it. If you're forced to deny something, that's not freedom.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    To my understanding, the enlightened one feels the pleasure but doesn't attach to it or seek to maintain it. He/she recognizes that pleasure has arisen, but discerns that it is only a temporary sensation/feeling and endures it with equanimity. Pleasure and pain hold equal value.

    There are different types of dukkha. One would be the pain itself... another is the seeking for pleasurable states. The enlightened one has gone beyond seeking for any pleasurable states, including jhana and arupa jhana.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    Right. You understand that it's only temporary, and is ultimately no better than anything else. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it as long as it's there.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    *shrug* If you enjoy it, that means you like it. If you like it, that means you dislike its absence. Anyway I don't think I can be of much help. Dhamma Dhatu would be a greater one for explaining the Buddhist concept of enlightenment.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    Like I said, Zen agrees with my concept of enlightenment. Zen is just as much buddhist as anything else. I'm surprised you of all people is acting so caught up in the label "buddhist." It's about the truth. The truth isn't a label.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    I'm not caught up with the label, but neither do I want to offend you. What you've found makes you happy, and if it makes you happy you're good to go. Why seek my approval? I'm just zis guy you know? What you've found doesn't have to be full-out enlightenment as described by the Buddha, but neither should we confuse "Buddhists" by changing their definitions. :) It's all good.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    You act like I don't know about buddhism. I'm not saying I have any "ultimate enlightenment." I'm not claiming to be more enlightened than anyone. I wonder if you've ever heard me if you think I think that...lol.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    (sigh) You don't understand what I mean, and this is why I don't want to be in this conversation. If you equate "enlightenment" with "full and complete liberation from the ten fetters", we're bound to have these kind of confusions and argue where argument isn't merited. :D You didn't say semi-enlightenment or partial enlightenment, so we're talking about different things entirely.

    My definition of "full enlightenment" is just that, complete liberation from the ten fetters. The non-clinging mind. No greed, aversion or delusion. Seeing both pleasure and pain with equal value, seeking neither yet being averse to neither.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    Look at your own words. LIBERATION. How can you possibly say you're liberated or free if you're not allowed choice in your actions? Even if the choice is wrong, it doesn't matter. The ONLY WAY you can be truly liberated is if you are free to do what you feel is right.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    Who said liberation entails not having choice? There is choice, just no perception of there being a separate "self" that is choosing. Choice is seen as choice.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    So why are you disagreeing with me? That's EXACTLY what i'm saying. Why does everyone keep debating me on the exact same thing i'm saying.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    The difference is the seeking of pleasure, which is what this thread is about. The definition of enlightenment that is the abandonment of the ten fetters does not include this; seeking pleasure is still tanha, or thirst. That's the only area of contention, and it's really not mine. I'm not striving against it.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    You're not seeking it. Try to understand the concept of action through inaction. You're not doing anything. You can learn how to do without doing. You're right, you don't seek it. But it naturally comes into being, because you accept the situation and your self as they are.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Then there's no argument. Somehow it keeps turning into an argument. I've stated what I know. I'm out... :D Later dude.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    haha deal
  • CamCam
    After reading all of that, I'm with Cloud on this one. My knowledge of Buddhist concepts is pretty limited, but what Cloud said is consistent with what I've learnt so far .. if that helps at all.
  • StardusterStarduster
    Having understanding doesn't change you. Desires evaporate only in light of futility. Still many things that occur in the course of life are interesting and may be pursued. But there is an overwhelming 'wait and see' factor to it all. Maybe less proactive, more curious, still hopeful for good things. Life goes on as long as you're still in it. Not so much the drive to make things happen as just to see what happens in the natural course of events.
  • WhoknowsWhoknows Australia Veteran
    This is a continuation of a conversation from another thread. Do you guys believe that upon enlightenment, being able to accept the moment as it is, seeing the perfection, you no longer care if bad things happen to you and you no longer desire everyday pleasures? This seems to be a fairly common buddhist idea. But in my opinion they are settling for a lower truth. Accepting only the good, nirvana, is not accepting reality as it is, because you are denying samsara. In order to truly accept reality as it is, you must accept and see the perfection of all of it. That means samsara too. If you can truly see that, then you are free to engage in the pleasures of samsara. Just remember all that you learned that got you to that point. Let the teachings serve their purpose.
    The first stage is that there is no "you", the second stage is there's no "stuff" of reality, the third stage is there's no differentiation- no non-equality - no contours, the forth stage is living the truth and going home. When these are understood there is no samsara, only a pure land, yet the referent is the same not other.

    Cheers, WK
  • havamarhavamar
    If you are no longer controlled by your desires you are truly free to choose. I highly doubt that an enlightened being would choose situations formerly regarded as painful, whether 'free from suffering' or not. The simple truth is that pain is an indicator of physical damage. The damage remains, despite any supposed absence of pain. Non-violence to living creatures includes your 'self'. Avoiding damaging, or painful, situations, is to be advised.

    The very act of seeking enlightenment is seeking pleasure. Enlightenment is the bliss of being totally ok with whatever the moment brings (among other things). People are UNHAPPY with their current state, so they seek enlightenment to be HAPPY. And guess what, you ARE happy once you are enlightened. This is because it is pleasurable. Thereafter one does not need to seek pleasure, because pleasure can be gained from any moment or activity.

    It could also be said that pleasure and pain are illusions, so there is nothing to seek in the first place. :)
  • xabirxabir Veteran
    This is a continuation of a conversation from another thread. Do you guys believe that upon enlightenment, being able to accept the moment as it is, seeing the perfection, you no longer care if bad things happen to you and you no longer desire everyday pleasures? This seems to be a fairly common buddhist idea. But in my opinion they are settling for a lower truth. Accepting only the good, nirvana, is not accepting reality as it is, because you are denying samsara. In order to truly accept reality as it is, you must accept and see the perfection of all of it. That means samsara too. If you can truly see that, then you are free to engage in the pleasures of samsara. Just remember all that you learned that got you to that point. Let the teachings serve their purpose.
    It is still possible to desire pleasures in the Sotapanna and Sakadagami stage of enlightenment.

    It is no longer possible to desire pleasures in the Anagami and Arhat stage of enlightenment.

  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    It's not about desiring them. It's about accepting them if they arise.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    It's not about desiring them. It's about accepting them if they arise.
    Then you should have titled your OP "Experiencing pleasure after Enlightenment", maybe that's where the confusion is coming in for some people. Are we all agreed it's ok to experience pleasure when it comes along, if one doesn't cling?

    Good thread, interesting discussion.

  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    True. Could someone re-title this thread. For some reason I can't. I'm not speaking about "seeking" per se, although it is in a way but not in the way that people think.
  • xabirxabir Veteran
    It's not about desiring them. It's about accepting them if they arise.
    Then you should have titled your OP "Experiencing pleasure after Enlightenment", maybe that's where the confusion is coming in for some people. Are we all agreed it's ok to experience pleasure when it comes along, if one doesn't cling?

    Good thread, interesting discussion.

    Unpleasant and pleasant sensations are unavoidable.

    Craving for them is avoidable - by becoming enlightened.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    True. Could someone re-title this thread.
    Done. :)

  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    Better yet. Could it be titled "Enjoying pleasure..." cuz that's the issue. I believe u can still enjoy pleasure and dislike pain after enlightenment.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Then it wouldn't be full enlightenment in the Buddhist sense. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying pleasure and disliking pain; it's just not the final liberation from the ten fetters.

    You make it sound like it's desiring to be fully enlightened while at the same time wanting to enjoy pleasures. One can be partly enlightened and pull this off; in fact that would be the result. Having greater clarity of reality but still being subject to this kind of duality. Stream-entry is a great example. One sees the truth but is not free from greed, aversion and delusion.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    In your opinion. That is a perception of enlightenment. I'm not telling you you're wrong. Don't tell me I'm wrong.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    No, that's the Buddhist definition of it. Anything else is not what Buddhism is talking about. Even Christianity has "enlightenment", but that's not to be confused with the Buddhist term.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    So you're the all-knowing of buddhism?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    No this is pretty general stuff.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    I'm not even tryin to argue with you. Your desire to argue shows your lack of understanding.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    @TheJourney,
    Okay, I'll take the gloves off, say my bit and then as promised in your other thread not talk to you again.

    You think you're enlightened, but the things you've said and way you act on the forum (your karma) indicates otherwise. You want people to think you're enlightened, but more than that you wish to convince yourself. There's a problem though. The definition of enlightenment is beyond pleasure and pain, while you still experience these and want to experience them. It is also beyond self, but you fear self-annihilation because you don't truly understand this concept.

    This entire thread is a way for you to convince yourself, through debating with others, that you are in fact enlightened even though you still cling to self-view and to sense pleasures. That's all it is. It hasn't worked; never will work. Your thirst to be something, even when you deny all of this, will keep driving you on and on; this is your dukkha. Also will be the dukkha that comes with the seeking of pleasure and the approval of others.

    This will only end when you choose to stop fooling yourself. I gave you the benefit of the doubt long after many others had mocked you, and I was almost convinced you truly understood. There's wiggle room when it comes to enlightenment. It's not perfect, but there are some views that remove this as a possibility. Whatever you've learned of life, it simply isn't what people are here on a Buddhist forum to learn about, especially when you shove it at them despite anything that is said to the contrary.

    I apologize if you find this to be Wrong Speech. I would, but I think in this case you should know what my opinion truly is rather than be left in doubt or coddled. I apologize if I've offended you, but I have no patience left if you're unwilling to go beyond the scope of your clinging and turn against even those who considered you a friend.

    Namaste
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited February 2011
    lol didn't read. if you're negative you're not even on my radar.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    I suggest you both practise some restraint; if you can 't talk nicely to each other, just ignore one another.
    It spoils it for others when two members engage in a constant tit-for-tat discussion which too often goes off-topic anyway. it effectively deprives others of being able to either contribute or get a word in edge-wise.

    Either do it in PM's, or just ignore one another's posts.
    Jeesh, the both of you....!
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    He's always the one that tries to question me. I'm just speaking my mind. You all speak your mind too. That's what we're here for.
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    "then you are free to engage in the pleasures of samsara"

    pleasure followed by suffering perhaps... in the end, there's no lasting pleasure in samsara.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    and there's no lasting suffering either. Samsara and nirvana are not separate. They join in the truth.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Do you guys believe that upon enlightenment, being able to accept the moment as it is, seeing the perfection, you no longer care if bad things happen to you and you no longer desire everyday pleasures?
    Yes

    This seems to be a fairly common buddhist idea. But in my opinion they are settling for a lower truth. Accepting only the good, nirvana, is not accepting reality as it is, because you are denying samsara.
    In the Buddhist context of enlightenment, not caring if the inevitable bad things happen to you, IS, accepting them because there is no such thing as "bad" things. There are just "things".

    In order to truly accept reality as it is, you must accept and see the perfection of all of it. That means samsara too. If you can truly see that, then you are free to engage in the pleasures of samsara. Just remember all that you learned that got you to that point. Let the teachings serve their purpose.
    Experiencing pleasure and desiring pleasure are two VERY different things. An enlightened being has no need to seek anything else out or avoid anything. The work is finished and everything is done and there is nothing more to do for oneself. If pain arises, that's ok, if pleasure arises, that's ok. If neither arises, that's ok. If it is ok when neither arises, then there is no desire nor need to seek something else out. However, that does not mean that pleasure can not be experienced, it simply means that one no longer had a need to go after it or desire it.
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    If you lose something, there is bound to be a problem. If you gain something, there is bound to be a problem. If you separate, there is bound to be a problem. If you unify, there is bound to be a problem.

    Take a deep breath. Have a cup of coffee. It is enough.
  • jinzangjinzang Veteran
    Lord Guru Abadhutipa said, "Son, as long as you are bound by the concept of a self, you must abandon the slightest deed with karmic result."
Sign In or Register to comment.