Joie de ... ?
Joie de ... ?
This might sound like a goofy question <not that that's ever stopped me before>, especially since I've had one foot in Buddhism for a good decade or so ... but here goes:
Does Buddhism value enjoying life?
The reason I ask, the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. If one succeeds by being enlightened in a given lifetime, unless one chooses to return as a bodhisattva, the wheel of human birth/life will end at the end of that lifetime. Now in the years between being enlightened and shuffling off the mortal coil, one would be in a state of nirvanic bliss (or whatever descriptor applies). But ... enjoying life and being in nirvanic bliss are dramatically different, yes? And, even if enlightened beings enjoy life, they only get a few years to do so, when they die they ain't comin' back.
In other words, the goal of Buddhism is to get enlightened, end suffering, and not take human birth ever again (except for bodhisattvas). I don't see a big opening for enjoying life in that view.
?
Does Buddhism value enjoying life?
The reason I ask, the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. If one succeeds by being enlightened in a given lifetime, unless one chooses to return as a bodhisattva, the wheel of human birth/life will end at the end of that lifetime. Now in the years between being enlightened and shuffling off the mortal coil, one would be in a state of nirvanic bliss (or whatever descriptor applies). But ... enjoying life and being in nirvanic bliss are dramatically different, yes? And, even if enlightened beings enjoy life, they only get a few years to do so, when they die they ain't comin' back.
In other words, the goal of Buddhism is to get enlightened, end suffering, and not take human birth ever again (except for bodhisattvas). I don't see a big opening for enjoying life in that view.
?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Joie de ... ?
One may enjoy life without clinging to that enjoyment in any way. So no, Buddhism doesn’t value enjoyment of life. Neither is it denied. Of course one may find plenty in the Pali Canon to contradict what I say.
Re: Joie de ... ?
Yeah, the permission to enjoy <without attachment> is quite different from the encouragement to enjoy.
Interestingly most of the Buddhists I know seem to enjoy life tons. Epiphenomenal side effect?
Interestingly most of the Buddhists I know seem to enjoy life tons. Epiphenomenal side effect?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Kim O'Hara
- Former staff member
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
- Location: North Queensland, Australia
Re: Joie de ... ?
And not just the Pali canon, either. I think of the whole world-hating thing as a key part of monastic traditions everywhere, i.e., anyone being encouraged to give up the world to focus on salvation needs both the carrot (salvation/bliss/nirvana) and the stick (the world is horrible anyway). It's just as strong, if not stronger, in Christian monasticism.
Guidance for lay people should be different, and usually is. I think many Western Buddhists get it wrong because we/they take advice to monastics as advice to lay followers. At best, this distorts the teachings. At worst, it feeds into all the negativity we have inherited, directly or indirectly, from Christianity - Original Sin and all that rubbish.
Kim
- Kim O'Hara
- Former staff member
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
- Location: North Queensland, Australia
Re: Joie de ... ?
Not a side effect at all but a natural consequence of the gradual training. In very simple terms, we learn to throw out the bad habits that were making us unhappy. What's left is all good.
Kim
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Joie de ... ?
It all depends on what brings you joy and makes you happy.
Do you still enjoy playing with the toys you had as a toddler?
Going beyond the dualism of like/don’t like,
The Buddhist practitioner experiences happiness without relying on it, and sadness without dwelling in it.
Happiness beyond happiness.
Do you still enjoy playing with the toys you had as a toddler?
Going beyond the dualism of like/don’t like,
The Buddhist practitioner experiences happiness without relying on it, and sadness without dwelling in it.
Happiness beyond happiness.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Joie de ... ?
It depends on the path. If one is on the path of renunciation, life becomes more joyful if you practice lojong. On the path of transformation, one transforms appearances and can then enjoy them, etcetera.
Virgo
Re: Joie de ... ?
I hadn't thought of the monastic vs. lay approaches. I always took, as you said, monastic advice as appropriate for anyone studying Buddhism.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:31 am Guidance for lay people should be different, and usually is. I think many Western Buddhists get it wrong because we/they take advice to monastics as advice to lay followers. At best, this distorts the teachings. At worst, it feeds into all the negativity we have inherited, directly or indirectly, from Christianity - Original Sin and all that rubbish.
How do I know if the dharma teachings I'm working with take the monastic or lay approach? It's not all that obvious to me.
The question for me: Does ending suffering mean enjoying? Relief, equanimity, calm, all these seem to arise naturally from no suffering. But enjoyment is more complicated, it can involve suffering, conflict, wild emotions, etc.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:34 amNot a side effect at all but a natural consequence of the gradual training. In very simple terms, we learn to throw out the bad habits that were making us unhappy. What's left is all good.Interestingly most of the Buddhists I know seem to enjoy life tons. Epiphenomenal side effect?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
-
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am
Re: Joie de ... ?
If we could see into the profundity of our karma, I'm not so sure we would be so happy about all of this "life." (Though death is probably worse.)Rick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:05 am Does Buddhism value enjoying life?
The reason I ask, the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. If one succeeds by being enlightened in a given lifetime, unless one chooses to return as a bodhisattva, the wheel of human birth/life will end at the end of that lifetime. Now in the years between being enlightened and shuffling off the mortal coil, one would be in a state of nirvanic bliss (or whatever descriptor applies). But ... enjoying life and being in nirvanic bliss are dramatically different, yes?
Ignorance is "bliss." At least it seems that way to the ignorant... It sure as hell isn't Nirvana.
Re: Joie de ... ?
Yes, but I wonder if the palette of experiential affect is narrower for the Buddhist practitioner? Certain colors on the palette can't be reached from a state of equanimity. You could respond: Well, certain colors can't be reached without equanimity. And you might be right, being un-enlightened, I'd have to guess.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:34 am The Buddhist practitioner experiences happiness without relying on it, and sadness without dwelling in it.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
-
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am
Re: Joie de ... ?
"Enjoyment" is often samsaric. But what would make it transcendent?Rick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:47 amThe question for me: Does ending suffering mean enjoying? Relief, equanimity, calm, all these seem to arise naturally from no suffering. But enjoyment is more complicated, it can involve suffering, conflict, wild emotions, etc.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:34 am Not a side effect at all but a natural consequence of the gradual training. In very simple terms, we learn to throw out the bad habits that were making us unhappy. What's left is all good.
Re: Joie de ... ?
I know about the Eightfold Path, but not the others you mention. Got links?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Joie de ... ?
Enjoyment at its most intense can be ecstatic, an altered state of being, but I don't know if that qualifies as transcendent.SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:53 am "Enjoyment" is often samsaric. But what would make it transcendent?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Joie de ... ?
Sure, Rick:
https://www.dzogchen.ee/ajakava/_dzogchen.htm
Virgo
Re: Joie de ... ?
Merci, Virgo.
So Tantra nurtures enjoyment, makes sense.
So Tantra nurtures enjoyment, makes sense.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Kim O'Hara
- Former staff member
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
- Location: North Queensland, Australia
Re: Joie de ... ?
It's a well-known problem in (Western) Theravada and there are resources, for instance, on Access to Insight explaining the difference and summarising the 'Advice to Householders' (I think that's the title of one such page but I haven't checked).Rick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:47 amI hadn't thought of the monastic vs. lay approaches. I always took, as you said, monastic advice as appropriate for anyone studying Buddhism.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:31 am Guidance for lay people should be different, and usually is. I think many Western Buddhists get it wrong because we/they take advice to monastics as advice to lay followers. At best, this distorts the teachings. At worst, it feeds into all the negativity we have inherited, directly or indirectly, from Christianity - Original Sin and all that rubbish.
How do I know if the dharma teachings I'm working with take the monastic or lay approach? It's not all that obvious to me.
On the Mahayana side, Vajrayana is primarily for monastics while lay practitioners' practice tends towards Pure Land. (That's wildly oversimplifying but it's a starting point.)
In traditionally-Buddhist countries, both Theravada and Mahayana, most lay people's practice is rather similar to that of lay Christians in traditionally-Christian countries - church/temple once a week or once a month plus major festivals and rites of passage, maybe a small home shrine or holy picture, etc.
I think you're expanding the meaning of "enjoyment" too much if you want it to cover suffering and conflict. Personally, I find both the highs and lows of the emotional roller-coaster have been smoothed out but the lows have been reduced far more than the highs.Rick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:47 amThe question for me: Does ending suffering mean enjoying? Relief, equanimity, calm, all these seem to arise naturally from no suffering. But enjoyment is more complicated, it can involve suffering, conflict, wild emotions, etc.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:34 amNot a side effect at all but a natural consequence of the gradual training. In very simple terms, we learn to throw out the bad habits that were making us unhappy. What's left is all good.Interestingly most of the Buddhists I know seem to enjoy life tons. Epiphenomenal side effect?
Kim
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Joie de ... ?
My spouse (who is not a Buddhist) argues that Buddhism denies one the experience of the full range of natural human emotions such as anger and rage, obsessiveness, complete absorption in pleasure. Your statement reminds me of that.Rick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:52 amYes, but I wonder if the palette of experiential affect is narrower for the Buddhist practitioner? Certain colors on the palette can't be reached from a state of equanimity. You could respond: Well, certain colors can't be reached without equanimity. And you might be right, being un-enlightened, I'd have to guess.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:34 am The Buddhist practitioner experiences happiness without relying on it, and sadness without dwelling in it.
All I can say is, it depends on one’s point of view.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work to tell someone who is in a rage about something, “yes, but look at how happy you are to be indulging in such misery, to be basking in that rainbow of upsetting thoughts!”
And this is why from my point of view, it’s a weak argument, because it confuses ‘not-clinging to one’s rising thoughts’ with having a a kind of cold-hearted indifference to events.
I think that what Buddhism offers is the ability to look at oneself in the ‘third-person’. You watch your own changing emotional state with the same awareness that you would have if you were the calm person watching someone else go through a rough patch.
You acknowledge and fully experience laughing at hilarious movies as well as crying in devastating grief, but the difference is like being a person who is lost in the woods and realizes it, as opposed to being someone who is lost in the woods, doesn’t know it, and who gets further lost, wandering deeper and deeper.
Having practiced Buddhist meditation, now there is something that you have developed, that you can come back to, that is unshaken (like a big Buddha statue that doesn’t move regardless of wind or earthquakes). This quality is developed in meditation practice, isn’t it? We sit and watch the thoughts arise and dissolve, and return to just sitting.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Joie de ... ?
There's a thread in the other wheel - Suttas for the Householder (teachings collected from the Pali texts).Rick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:47 amI hadn't thought of the monastic vs. lay approaches. I always took, as you said, monastic advice as appropriate for anyone studying Buddhism.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:31 am Guidance for lay people should be different, and usually is. I think many Western Buddhists get it wrong because we/they take advice to monastics as advice to lay followers. At best, this distorts the teachings. At worst, it feeds into all the negativity we have inherited, directly or indirectly, from Christianity - Original Sin and all that rubbish.
How do I know if the dharma teachings I'm working with take the monastic or lay approach? It's not all that obvious to me.
Posted in the same thread:
The Buddha’s Teachings to Lay People - John Kelly
The Buddha’s Teachings to Lay People
In this work, all the discourses addressed to lay people in the four main nikāyas of the Pāli Canon, and most of those in the fifth (Khuddaka), have been surveyed, categorised, and analysed. The different ways in which the Buddha customised his style of teaching and the Dhamma being taught according to the various demographic characteristics of his audience (i.e., age, gender, class, and spiritual attainment) are explored, highlighted and discussed.
Some of the findings are to be expected, whereas others are less so. There are several clear gender and class differences in the type of discourse used, the topics of the teaching, and in whether the sutta is oriented to lead the listener to the more worldly goals of happiness in this life or a good rebirth, as opposed to being directed towards complete liberation from rebirth. There are differences too based on the age of the addressees, but less pronounced.
This survey has also brought forth some distinct characteristics of the different nikāyas of the Pāli Canon in terms of their suttas to the lay community. The Aṅguttara Nikāya contains more suttas targeted directly to lay people, plus many others of the ‘indirect’ variety, more suttas addressed to women and to the middle-class, and a higher emphasis on the goals of happiness in this life and a good rebirth.
Overall the suttas addressed to lay people show a very strong emphasis on good conduct by body, speech, and mind. But this paper hasn’t addressed whether there would be a different emphasis shown in an examination of the suttas addressed exclusively to the monastic community, and this is an area that warrants further exploration.
A comprehensive catalogue of suttas in the Pāli Canon that are addressed to householders is included in an appendix.
https://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/10617
Re: Joie de ... ?
Thanks, Kim, for the information about lay Buddhism.
Sounds like the way to go: Minimize pain while leaving pleasure largely intact.Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:48 am Personally, I find both the highs and lows of the emotional roller-coaster have been smoothed out but the lows have been reduced far more than the highs.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...