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.
Can a Buddhist be hedonistic?
Lostie
Veteran
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.
Are Buddhism and hedonism mutually exclusive? Pardon me if this question has been asked before.
0
Comments
At least for us Theravadians...
Buddhism doesnt strive to maximise net pleasure - it eliminates suffering.
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.
it is deferred gratification, or what comes after!
-Instant gratification is about temporarily alleviating suffering. Hedonism?
-Deferred gratification is about getting good results. Buddhism?
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.
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
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.
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)
The different ways of speaking could just be different ways of speaking...
and..... different strokes for different folks.
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
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.
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: 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: 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.