enjoying versus non-attachment

[nobody12345]

Surely, Mahayana is much easier to swallow than Theravada.
But one should remember that the good medicine is bitter to taste.
Human mind always makes an excuse to follow an easy road or a short cut.
For an example, having entities that will guide you to the pure land of the West that will bring you the enlightenment without pain and exertion are sweet to the ears for sure.
However, if you are really serious about liberation, stick to the way of the elders (Theravada).
Theravada does not candy coat anything.
It's like a plain and bland meal that you are supposed to eat when you are preparing for physical competition.
You know it tastes like crap but it brings you the extra edge to win and conquer.
We are fighting the war with Mara and his minions to gain the ultimate liberation.
Mara is the enemy that each practitioner must conquer.
Theravada is like a meal that is precisely formulated to give you the edge.
It is formulated to deliever the result, not to give you great taste and flavor.
Metta.

[Prasadachitta]

Surely, Mahayana is much easier to swallow than Theravada

Hi there Imaginos
I, for one, am not so sure of this.

Metta

Gabe

[nobody12345]

Surely, Mahayana is much easier to swallow than Theravada

Hi there Imaginos
I, for one, am not so sure of this.

Metta

Gabe

Hi friend.
Mahayaha introduced savior like figures (such as Guanyin, Amitabha, and etc.) who are supposed to do heavy liftings for the followers.
When it comes to human psychology on religion, the biggest selling point is its savor figure.
All the major religions (except true Buddhism) have at least one.
The rapid rise of Mahayana over Theravada in the history had a proximate cause.
And the cause is it provided people what they mostly likely to hear (i.e. savior like figures who do heavy liftings for them).
Human minds love free rides, package deals, group salvations, and etc.
In other words, humans love to receive something for free without discipline and hard work.
But that's not what our teacher, the one and only fully awakened one, taught.
Our teacher taught that he teaches Dhamma but its practice is up to us.
Dhamma is the most precisely formulated map to carry one to the other shore.
However, it will do nothing unless someone is actually putting down hard work according to the map.
One's practice determines one's destiny.
There's no one can save you but yourself.
Metta.

[Prasadachitta]

Hi friend.
Mahayaha introduced savior like figures (such as Guanyin, Amitabha, and etc.) who are supposed to do heavy liftings for the followers.
When it comes to human psychology on religion, the biggest selling point is its savor figure.
All the major religions (except true Buddhism) have at least one.
The rapid rise of Mahayana over Theravada in the history had a proximate cause.
And the cause is it provided people what they mostly likely to hear (i.e. savior like figures who do heavy liftings for them).
Human minds love free rides, package deals, group salvations, and etc.
In other words, humans love to receive something for free without discipline and hard work.
But that's not what our teacher, the one and only fully awakened one, taught.
Our teacher taught that he teaches Dhamma but its practice is up to us.
Dhamma is the most precisely formulated map to carry one to the other shore.
However, it will do nothing unless someone is actually putting down hard work according to the map.
One's practice determines one's destiny.
There's no one can save you but yourself.
Metta.

I have no objection to what you say other than your characterization of Mahayana.

Take Care

Gabe

[Nibbida]

There's a difference between enjoyment of a phenomenon and becoming attached to what is being enjoyed. The first can be experienced without the second getting in the way, if you can understand what I am suggesting. The Buddha "enjoyed" (experienced pleasure in) contemplation on the breath without becoming attached to it. Can you see the difference?

The moment can be enjoyed (for however long the moment exists) and one can enjoy it as such without becoming attached to such phenomena. It is when craving for a specific enjoyment enters the picture (be it a physical or a mental enjoyment) that enjoyment turns into attachment. You just have to learn to separate the two.

Ian and others make a lot of good points here, which I'll add to. A difference between experiencing a pleasure and grasping at it (or clinging to it) is whether or not we try to control the subjective experience. A pleasure is impermanent, like all things. So when we experience it with equanimity, we allow it to arise and pass without trying to interfere with the subjective experience of it. Westerners would call this savoring and/or gratitude. When we develop concentration and mindfulness, even the simplest experiences can become very enjoyable and fulfilling. When I eat a piece of fruit on a retreat, it tastes (smells, feels) amazing. When I shove food down my hole mindlessly, I'm getting less from it.

As said above, done with mindfulness and concentration, the simple act of breathing can be very enjoyable (and it's legal and portable). So I understand, at least partly, why Buddhist precepts recommend against intoxicants or overindulgence. Compared to the serene fulfillment that comes from training the mind, they're all just cheap thrills and can't deliver the satisfaction that we think they can.

A problem Westerners run into is that, on the surface, this seems like a puritanical opposition to pleasure. "Live miserably, pray to God, and keep trudging on and maybe you'll get to heaven when you die." Buddhism, as we know, is very different in its orientation. The results begin now, in the moment we make a choice.

As Ben said, when we watch the consequences closely, there's no need to grit our teeth and forbid ourselves anything. The consequences of unskillful overindulging of any kind become apparent.