Living life to the fullest

My current area of concern w/r/to Buddhism in general is really about the living life to the fullest piece. I think it’s so important that the Buddha lived his 29 years of total luxury first. And I think it’s bogus to claim that those experiences had no value whatsoever, that for someone today it’s fine to quit early and go to the monastery and be free from suffering. I grant a certain logic to it. What is the point of sense pleasures like a good steak or skydiving (2 examples that came up in a sit)? Happiness. If you can get happiness anyway, why bother with the sense-pleasures, which stimulate desire, cause suffering, and cause craving.

The Jewish view, I think, is usually a little more pro some sense pleasures. Traditional Jews restrict them, but even they like a nice, big meal, good sex (with your wife/husband), a little music. What is so wrong with that? It wasn’t making me unhappy.

The Western Buddhist fudge that I often hear is, desire without clinging. So, eat the steak, but watch the mind. Like with the ice cream yesterday (better example, since less animal suffering involved). It was very hard to eat the ice cream without clinging. When I did start to cling, I knew it was time to get some space. Then again, I think in my heart I feel like, nu, so there’s a little clinging. Big deal. It causes some suffering, then later the suffering is over.

I think it goes back to my general orientation of enlightenment/devekut rather than liberation. I know they’re all the same thing, but there is a different valence to it and a difference, it seems to me, in how life is approached off of retreat. Here, fine. But at home, I don’t really intend to give up any of the sense-pleasures I enjoy. Certainly not the big ones. I would hope that I could be a little more spacious around the desire - you know, see when it grabs me, see when I’m caught. And also be more equanimous when the desire is and is not fulfilled, rather than attaching too much. I feel like this is the middle way w/r/to the middle way.

Seeing some aversions is really useful, as is perhaps working through them. My aversion to people, for example. Not enough time now to fully go into it, but let’s just say, I am really averse. I don’t like the restrictions I place on myself when others are around, I don’t like accommodating, and so on. It’s really useful to see how this operates, because I am around people a lot. It’s also useful to be able to not be owned by that aversion. Maybe there are unpleasant things but I don’t have to get as worked up about them. “Oh, that’s self-repression energy, okay, I know that, it’s just an event.”

So it works on that scale. In terms of really renouncing certain sense-pleasures, not for retreat but for life, I think Eastern Buddhism does have that in mind, and I think I don’t. I think you really only live once, and that life is a gift.

Ok, it did feel good to do some writing after some time away. Whether it was skillful or not, I don’t know. My anger is mostly gone, but I have a feeling my mind is going to be very busy. Who the hell knows.

(Later - from notebook)

I think my bane is the path not taken. Regret, bitterness.

Ego wants the opportunity to flourish. Question: What is Discipline, and what is its place in my life? I judge myself as "undisciplined," though objectively this seems not to be true compared with other people. Sticking with things is hard for me -- what's harder is forgoing other things. And watching other people get them.

Clinging to success. Clinging to fun. Clinging to a-life-well-lived. All may be good things, but surely the clinging could be lessened someone.

I just don't believe that pursuing sense-desire is so terrible. Eyes open: It will pass, it will not fully satisfy. But I just don't feel that everyone doing things is wrong. And I don't by the "for the benefit of all beings" thing. I really feel like I don't buy this theory of reality. Applied to places of constriction, yes. But not widened to everything. Where there is dysfunction or harm or unhappiness, yes, and it works. But we need to admit, conservatives may be happy. (Maybe I go too far in the other direction? I don't know.)

"How to feel your feelings" -- this resonates with me.

Again, on retreat, temporarily renouncing makes sense for particular reasons. But my model is to go back to living, only (hopefully) wiser.

Maybe I'm just young and fortunate. But that just inspires me to live more.

Look, it should be ok to be at a place of "Here's what I think is right for me here, and here are the parts which aren't." I guess my tightness around it is just, I don't want to be arrogant and closed about it, and so there's a worry that I might be.

Here's where I am. I think it is Right to enjoy sense-pleasures from a place of curiosity, joy, and wonder. Also, many pleasures can lead to great insight and transformation (how many of these people have ever done body electric...). We must be mindful that (1) we not let sense-pleasures harm other beings (e.g., SUVs), (2) we not let sense pleasures degrade the soul and occlude deeper stuff (e.g., God, art, love) that is the marrow of life, and most importantly (3) we would be wise not t to think that pleasures will really make us happy - because they are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and empty, so they won't.

I also grant that I fail #3 on core issues -- e.g., achievement, conventional success, competition. But that's where I'm at. The nice fisherman with the house is leading a good life. I recognize my desire to do something "real" as a desire, but I'm not sure that's so terrible. "Achieving something" albeit with knowledge of emptiness/non-clinging.

(The next morning, on the same topic)

Remember, Pat Riley is a Buddhist too. And Sharon published a book. So - this is really about moderation and balance. And, a time for everything - renunciation and acceptance. Particularly if some of my sense-pleasures can still be a lot to handle, knowing how to enjoy and not cling will help.