No inherent sensual pleasure

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by Buckwheat »

Alex123 wrote:Hello all,

Lets say you want to eat the cake, when you eat it - you experience pleasure. But when you stop eating it, the pleasure stops and eventually you back where you started from. If one tries to eat one cake after another cake, then very soon what was sources of pleasure will feel painful. If cake was trully the cause of pleasure, why does it turn into unpleasant feeling when indulged excessively?

One can feel thirsty (dukkha-vedanā) and then when one drinks the water, one feels good feeling. But if one keeps drinking glass after glass after glass, it will feel uncomfortable and can even lead to death.

Sitting and resting can feel great after a long and tiring walk (which is painful). But try to sit for many hours. It will feel uncomfortable. Here also we have a case where something when indulged excessively long becomes uncomfortable.

Maybe there are no inherent pleasures in the world, just more or less dukkha. The relief of greater dukkha feels pleasant, but only for short amount of time and only in comparison with greater dukkha.

What is your opinion?
That's a pretty accurate description. To add to it: Timing and balance are important. When tired, rest. When rested, do something. When hungry or thirsty, fulfill that drive in moderation, not indulgence. When these things cause pleasure, allow that pleasure to rejuvenate your system, but also see the pleasure as not-stable, not-satisfying, and not-mine.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by danieLion »

porpoise wrote:
danieLion wrote:
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three feelings. Which three? A feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain, a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. A feeling of pleasure should be seen as stressful. A feeling of pain should be seen as an arrow. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain should be seen as inconstant. When a monk has seen a feeling of pleasure as stressful, a feeling of pain as an arrow, and a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as inconstant, then he is called a monk who is noble, who has seen rightly, who has cut off craving, destroyed the fetters, and who — from the right breaking-through of conceit — has put an end to suffering & stress."
Useful quote, though does the repeated use of "should be seen" suggest strategy rather than definition? In other words the strategy being recommended here is to approach pleasant feeling with caution, because the experience of pleasant feeling leads to grasping and therefore to stress. Similarly neutral feeling should be seen as inconstant because it will invariably tip over into either pleasant or unpleasant feeling.
Definition or strategy? Hmmm, IDK. I was just thinking they were perceptions (sanna) but ATI seems to be down right now so I can't check the Pali. :thinking:
User avatar
convivium
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:13 am

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by convivium »

we should all be asking, "what does maha boowa have to say about this?"
One should not overlook oneself, for this is a happy world, peaceful and worth living in, full of fun and joy. But further than this, for those who want to work at making happiness within the Heart rather than other kinds of happiness, they should put forth their full effort and exertion, gradually working towards their aim. Then the subtle type of happiness will arise.
http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/boowafnd.php
Just keep breathing in and out like this. Don't be interested in anything else. It doesn't matter even if someone is standing on their head with their ass in the air. Don't pay it any attention. Just stay with the in-breath and the out-breath. Concentrate your awareness on the breath. Just keep doing it. http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Just_Do_It_1_2.php
pegembara
Posts: 3454
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by pegembara »

Alex123 wrote:Hello all,

Lets say you want to eat the cake, when you eat it - you experience pleasure. But when you stop eating it, the pleasure stops and eventually you back where you started from. If one tries to eat one cake after another cake, then very soon what was sources of pleasure will feel painful. If cake was trully the cause of pleasure, why does it turn into unpleasant feeling when indulged excessively?

One can feel thirsty (dukkha-vedanā) and then when one drinks the water, one feels good feeling. But if one keeps drinking glass after glass after glass, it will feel uncomfortable and can even lead to death.

Sitting and resting can feel great after a long and tiring walk (which is painful). But try to sit for many hours. It will feel uncomfortable. Here also we have a case where something when indulged excessively long becomes uncomfortable.

Maybe there are no inherent pleasures in the world, just more or less dukkha. The relief of greater dukkha feels pleasant, but only for short amount of time and only in comparison with greater dukkha.

What is your opinion?
If only we can live without food and water. If only we can sit or lie down without having to go to the toilet. If only we can walk without feeling tired. If only we don't need to sleep. If only we don't have to wake up. If only we don't need to breathe. If only we can remain young and healthy forever.

With birth as condition .........
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
convivium
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:13 am

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by convivium »

Mundane Order
Ignorance (avijja)
Kamma formations (sankhara)
Consciousness (viññana)
Mentality-materiality (namarupa)
Sixfold sense base (salayatana)
Contact (phassa)
Feeling (vedana)
Craving (tanha)
Clinging (upadana)
Existence (bhava)
Birth (jati)
Suffering (dukkha)
Transcendental Order
Faith (saddha)
Joy (pamojja)
Rapture (piti)
Tranquillity (passaddhi)
Happiness (sukha)
Concentration (samadhi)
Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhutañanadassana)
Disenchantment (nibbida)
Dispassion (viraga)
Emancipation (vimutti)
Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el277.html
Just keep breathing in and out like this. Don't be interested in anything else. It doesn't matter even if someone is standing on their head with their ass in the air. Don't pay it any attention. Just stay with the in-breath and the out-breath. Concentrate your awareness on the breath. Just keep doing it. http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Just_Do_It_1_2.php
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by Buckwheat »

pegembara wrote:If only we can live without food and water. If only we can sit or lie down without having to go to the toilet. If only we can walk without feeling tired. If only we don't need to sleep. If only we don't have to wake up. If only we don't need to breathe. If only we can remain young and healthy forever.

With birth as condition .........
You sound envious of granite. ;)
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by Spiny Norman »

kirk5a wrote:
porpoise wrote:In other words the strategy being recommended here is to approach pleasant feeling with caution, because the experience of pleasant feeling leads to grasping and therefore to stress.
I'd say further than "caution" - more along the lines of weariness, disenchantment, even disgust - "nibbida"
I don't disagree, but I think caution is more like a strategy for practice, whereas disenchantment is more like a result of practice.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by ground »

Alex123 wrote:Hello all,

Lets say you want to eat the cake, when you eat it - you experience pleasure. But when you stop eating it, the pleasure stops and eventually you back where you started from. If one tries to eat one cake after another cake, then very soon what was sources of pleasure will feel painful. If cake was trully the cause of pleasure, why does it turn into unpleasant feeling when indulged excessively?

One can feel thirsty (dukkha-vedanā) and then when one drinks the water, one feels good feeling. But if one keeps drinking glass after glass after glass, it will feel uncomfortable and can even lead to death.

Sitting and resting can feel great after a long and tiring walk (which is painful). But try to sit for many hours. It will feel uncomfortable. Here also we have a case where something when indulged excessively long becomes uncomfortable.

Maybe there are no inherent pleasures in the world, just more or less dukkha. The relief of greater dukkha feels pleasant, but only for short amount of time and only in comparison with greater dukkha.

What is your opinion?
Let the source of your pleasures change. :sage:
User avatar
waimengwan
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:22 am

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by waimengwan »

We are never satisfied, if we eat something it satisfy us until the next hunger pangs come, so we are continuously needing to eat food to be satisfied. So one of my dharma teacher told us that we just reducing our suffering it is not actually pleasure. And this applies to things like sex or sleep etc. We have to do it continuously. That is the nature of our the human existence, hence realising that should help us to develop renunciation towards such an existence.
rahul3bds
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:31 am

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by rahul3bds »

Alex123 wrote:Hello all,

Lets say you want to eat the cake, when you eat it - you experience pleasure. But when you stop eating it, the pleasure stops and eventually you back where you started from. If one tries to eat one cake after another cake, then very soon what was sources of pleasure will feel painful. If cake was trully the cause of pleasure, why does it turn into unpleasant feeling when indulged excessively?

One can feel thirsty (dukkha-vedanā) and then when one drinks the water, one feels good feeling. But if one keeps drinking glass after glass after glass, it will feel uncomfortable and can even lead to death.

Sitting and resting can feel great after a long and tiring walk (which is painful). But try to sit for many hours. It will feel uncomfortable. Here also we have a case where something when indulged excessively long becomes uncomfortable.

Maybe there are no inherent pleasures in the world, just more or less dukkha. The relief of greater dukkha feels pleasant, but only for short amount of time and only in comparison with greater dukkha.

What is your opinion?
which reminds me of "Puttamansa Sutta"
"And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by binocular »

Alex123 wrote:Lets say you want to eat the cake, when you eat it - you experience pleasure. But when you stop eating it, the pleasure stops and eventually you back where you started from. If one tries to eat one cake after another cake, then very soon what was sources of pleasure will feel painful. If cake was trully the cause of pleasure, why does it turn into unpleasant feeling when indulged excessively?
A casual observation would suggest that this is because the circumstances of consumption have changed.

One thing is to eat a piece of cake when you first feel like it.
It's something quite different to eat a piece of cake when you already have several pieces of cake in your stomach.

In the first set of circumstances, eating the cake can be pleasurable; in the second set, it usually isn't.

Maybe there are no inherent pleasures in the world, just more or less dukkha.
Or maybe our bodies-minds are not made to experience pleasure in ways that we tend to assume they should.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Timpan
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:04 am
Location: sweden

Re: No inherent sensual pleasure

Post by Timpan »

waimengwan wrote:We are never satisfied, if we eat something it satisfy us until the next hunger pangs come, so we are continuously needing to eat food to be satisfied. So one of my dharma teacher told us that we just reducing our suffering it is not actually pleasure. And this applies to things like sex or sleep etc. We have to do it continuously. That is the nature of our the human existence, hence realising that should help us to develop renunciation towards such an existence.
This is how i also see it, all attachment leads to suffering and and to seek happiness in sources that are under the condition of change "anicca" is not real happiness but conditioned happiness that will not sustain.
Post Reply