Having fun with practice goes a long way in ensuring the sustainability of progress. Cheers to the samādhi of playfulness (遊|游戲三昧)!
-
-
Replying to @NoaidiX
Isn't having fun a form of attachment? Genuine question here (tweet popped in my feed and sparked interest)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sugarbanter
Good question. Fun isn't problematic in and of itself, as the presence of fettering-attachment (saṃyojana) depends on whether desire&greed (chandarāga) arises from the pairing between perceptual "organ" (e.g., body, mind) and perceptual "object" (e.g., sensation, mentation). 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NoaidiX @sugarbanter
Fun (in this case, "the samādhi of playfulness") functions to remove attachment, particularly attachment to rigid means of practice, i.e., "taking oneself too seriously." If fun is *abused* as an escape and dependency forms, then medicine has been turned into poison. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX @sugarbanter
As an empirical test of attachment, if the pleasant feelings (sukhā vedanā) conditioned by one's practice occur without the subsequent arising of craving (taṇhā), then clinging-attachment (upādāna) has no footing. 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX @sugarbanter
In Buddhist contemplative frameworks, pleasant experiences in and of themselves are unproblematic. In fact, intensely pleasant experiences arise in meditative absorptions known as jhāna-s without issue, unless, of course, they become objects of subsequent craving/attachment. 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In sum: Some approaches to "fun," or relationships to "fun," will condition attachment, but not all "fun" will necessarily, in all cases, do so if handled wisely. 5/5
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.