-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Buddhists: Why the emphasis on not enjoying the pleasures of the senses?
- Thread starter agorman
- Start date
buddhist
Well-Known Member
The pleasures of the senses are seen as leading to affliction, obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from nibbana:
"Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty.
“As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it." (MN 19)
There's another sutta (Ud 3.2) where Ven. Nanda was tempted to return to the lay life. The Buddha took him to Tavatimsa (2nd) heaven, and Ven. Nanda realized that the pleasures of that heaven were incomparable to the pleasures of the earthly plane. Each successively higher heaven is far more blissful than the one lower than it, with nibbana the highest bliss - the problem is, we need to detach from that which is lower in order to attain the higher. “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it." (MN 19)
Last edited:
You can certainly enjoy them before they pass. Just don't get addicted. (Those fiery cravings of addiction cause all sorts of trouble.)
Adittapariyaya Sutta: The Fire Sermon
So bottomline, If I go on as a Buddhist, could I enjoy life and its pleasures or not? Would I drink a small glass of wine and feel guilty because "oh, that didn't lead to Nirvana"?
crossfire of course it's not my intention to become obsessed with wine and women, but I don't want to become a monk either. Seems Buddhism is not my path, because everything I read is about how bad it is to enjoy life. It looks so negative! Because the Buddha seems to imply that everything you enjoy will lead to an obsession.
And about Nanda's story; yes, I've actually seen better places in the astral plane, but why not having the best time possible here in the physical reality until I die and go to other, higher planes? I'm not hurried to go to Heaven considering I still have lots of things to do here.
crossfire of course it's not my intention to become obsessed with wine and women, but I don't want to become a monk either. Seems Buddhism is not my path, because everything I read is about how bad it is to enjoy life. It looks so negative! Because the Buddha seems to imply that everything you enjoy will lead to an obsession.
And about Nanda's story; yes, I've actually seen better places in the astral plane, but why not having the best time possible here in the physical reality until I die and go to other, higher planes? I'm not hurried to go to Heaven considering I still have lots of things to do here.
No you don't need to become a monk. Buddha has suggestions for laypersons, as well. (I can give you sutta references, if you like.) One way to reduce inclination for addiction is by reducing suffering.
The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think | The Huffington Post
Papoon
Active Member
It doesn't have to be like that.
I studied with Tibetan teachers, and we had plenty good fun.
As Crossfire said, craving and aversion are the causes of suffering.
Craving is wanting what you don't, or can't ,have.
Satisfaction of a desire is not a problem in itself - unless the desire inherently causes suffering.
However, learning to be patient, to delay gratification of desire, to tolerate discomforts...these efforts free us from rampant desire without discrimination.
It is a question of balance and pragmatism - and training in mindful choice.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why there's something to feel guilty about; you're simply exploring the Laws of Reality/Dhamma. Remember, the Buddha fully explored the pleasures of this life before his renunciation because he personally saw the futility in those pleasures. The precepts are not Laws (as perceived in other religions); they are voluntarily assumed guidelines for personal living because we personally see the benefits in following them.
I prefer to see it as realistic. It's just how samsara works.
Feel free to do so
So pleasures are futile? So, what happened with getting out of suffering/dukkha? I'm sorry for not understanding.
Seems Buddhism is definitively not my path; since I believe reaching a state of wellbeing and enjoyment in this physical world is very important. What kind of an enlightened person wouldn't be able to reach that level here on this world? Also, if your state of consciousness on this world is of suffering, doesn't that mean you'll carry that state into the afterlife?
It all sounds to me like Buddha recommended us not even to relax a bit and practice at all times. So a happy householder's life would be nothing but an obstacle. Just look at this Dhammapada verse from chapter XVI:
"211 Let, therefore, no man love anything; loss of the beloved is evil. Those who love nothing and hate nothing, have no fetters."
No love? Really? Just because of the fear of losing the beloved? What kind of an enlightened advice is that? Shouldn't it be "no fear to lose"?
I've been told the Dhammapada is just for monks though. Anyway, it's always the same story with so many religions, the same as Christianity; run from this world's pleasures and gain paradise. Pardon me but that is such a scam!
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I prefer this translation of Dhammapada 211: "the absence of what is pleasing is troubling" (Glenn Wallis' translation). The Buddha is communicating that life is unsatisfactory because of the fleeting nature of all pleasures.
As for running from this world's pleasures; Buddhism is not precisely teaching that. It is actually teaching us to reach for the higher bliss that exceed the pleasures of the lower. These blissful states are reachable in this lifetime, and are not illusory promises for future bliss that comes only during the afterlife (as in Christianity and other religions).
For example, the bliss of the first jhana, the first meditative plane, exceeds all pleasures I normally enjoy in ordinary life. I have experienced this for myself. I seek less for "ordinary pleasures", as a result.
Perhaps Buddha's first lines from his first sermon upon awakening might be of help to clarify:
"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
-source-
Being devoted to sense pleasures, whether they be profitable or unprofitable, dumbs down your ability to discern what is profitable and what is unprofitable.
Likewise, being devoted to self-affliction, whether they be profitable or unprofitable, also dumbs down your ability to discern what is profitable and what is unprofitable.
The Middle Way is the way of discernment, which develops the mind, or to quote Buddha "producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."
A little discernment can go a long way. For example: Savoring a piece of candy while you are eating it is probably not going to cause suffering, and will be beneficial as a practice in mindfulness. However, wolfing down 10 pounds of candy without savoring each piece will likely lead to suffering in that you will most likely get an upset stomach from eating all of that candy at once, and you also missed the opportunity to mindfully savor each piece.
Likewise, if that candy causes a toothache, it would be profitable to have the tooth repaired. Insisting on the self-affliction of refusing to get the tooth repaired when it is in your power is unprofitable, and will definitely lead to more suffering in regards to the tooth in the future. Again, a little discernment goes a long ways.
"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
-source-
Being devoted to sense pleasures, whether they be profitable or unprofitable, dumbs down your ability to discern what is profitable and what is unprofitable.
Likewise, being devoted to self-affliction, whether they be profitable or unprofitable, also dumbs down your ability to discern what is profitable and what is unprofitable.
The Middle Way is the way of discernment, which develops the mind, or to quote Buddha "producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."
A little discernment can go a long way. For example: Savoring a piece of candy while you are eating it is probably not going to cause suffering, and will be beneficial as a practice in mindfulness. However, wolfing down 10 pounds of candy without savoring each piece will likely lead to suffering in that you will most likely get an upset stomach from eating all of that candy at once, and you also missed the opportunity to mindfully savor each piece.
Likewise, if that candy causes a toothache, it would be profitable to have the tooth repaired. Insisting on the self-affliction of refusing to get the tooth repaired when it is in your power is unprofitable, and will definitely lead to more suffering in regards to the tooth in the future. Again, a little discernment goes a long ways.
Asking
Member
I don't think it's about not enjoying the sense but rather not relying on said enjoyment to keep yourself happy since they only provide short terms boosts to your moods and the costs associated with constantly achieving short term pleasures are detrimental in the long term. It's better to use more sustainable means of achieving happiness.
Papoon
Active Member
I would add that happiness is a learnable skill.
If happiness relies on conditions, then you are a victim of conditions.
I have learned to generate happiness under appalling conditions. This was possible only because of the insight into my nature which was cultivated by meditation and contemplation.
The realisation that my personality is empty of inherent existence liberated me from needing my preferred conditions to experience happiness.
So, it is not so much a case of "pleasure is bad, m'kay ?' The lesson is - don't be a slave to your ideas of which pleasures are prerequisite to your happiness, because that way you fail to discover that your happiness is a state you can choose and generate internally.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's a monastic directive mainly. Not so much as abstinence from pleasure, but to minimize distraction as you put it.
Sounds about right.
Also I think it's a lesson dealing with extremes.
The opening words from the Dhammapada are quite straightforward about it.
Dhammapada 1:1-2
1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
Rinchen
Member
The path of renunciation is mainly found within Hinayana (not to be confused with Theravada) and Mahayana.
With in Vajrayana there is the path of Transformation. The monks in Vajrayana still uphold the Vinaya, but not all Buddhists are renunciates.
"The problem isn't enjoyment, it's attachment"
-Mahasiddha Tilopa
Well I currently have a problem or a confusion, because I feel that most divine beings; gods, buddhas, etc. led me back to worshipping Norse gods, but as I feel more identified with Celtic culture, Freya and Tyr prefer me to go back to some form of Buddhism or simply managing with my own true self, buddha nature, "I am" or however you call it. I think this spiritual problem stifles my life progress. So, I'd appreciate if you can please elaborate or give me some links about that transformation path.
So you mean obsessions and unbalance are the problem, right?
Rinchen
Member
Gods and Goddesses are Samsaric beings. They can provide short term happiness, but not long term (many lifetimes of meeting the Dharma, Realization, etc).
So if you feel a connection with certain gods and goddesses, that's okay. However, from the Buddhist standpoint, one shouldn't take refuge in such beings.
The path of Transformation is a Tantric one that deals with transforming the world into a pure realm, the senses into deities, so on and so forth. Best to talk with a Teacher about that as all such practices require, at the least, Lung (Transmission).
Spiritual confusion is a tricky and heavy burdon. When one takes refuge (whether it be buddhism or something else), that confusion goes away. You take yourself off the "spiritual market" and devote yourself to a particular path instead off flipping back and forth, or living with contradictory beliefs.
Transmission is out of my reach. But should I interpret that as a path to change your mind so you change your life/world?
The problem is, every path has things I don't like or can't accept.