I did answer this question in my OP. Like most people, I want to live a meaningful life. I don’t see hedonism as meaningful. I also don’t see a life of pleasure-denying puritanical dogmatism as meaningful.
Why would anyone say that studying ancient texts is a “waste of time”? I’m shocked (LOL). It’s one of the most enjoyable things I do. I like trying to inhabit someone else’s world. I’ve been an avid reader all my life. Reading things written a long time ago is deeply rewarding, I find.
“Sitting” is it’s own reward. And, as I said above, it holds the promise of enlightenment for those who have the temperament and the opportunity (which I don’t). But it also has benefits for those who only play in the shallow end. Even “mindfulness” on its own is beneficial. Paying attention is revolutionary.
One thing we know about human happiness is that self-transcendence is very much part of the mix. I have always tried to cultivate this mindset of doing scholarship in the service of others. The whole point of making discoveries is to share them! It’s the experience of discovery that I find exhilarating and want to share.
Christians will often say “What’s the point of life if you don’t believe in God?” Or “What’s the point of life if you won’t meet your loved ones in heaven?” (Gillian Welch has written wonderfully poignant songs on these themes). I used to find it odd that Buddhists would have the same rhetoric.
I’m 58 and in my life I have been a scientist, librarian, musician/composer, painter, sculptor, calligrapher, photographer (briefly pro), writer, and member of a Buddhist Order. I’ve been married and divorced. I have surfed in the ocean many times (especially at Piha Beach). I’ve climbed at least two active volcanoes (plus I was born inside the caldera of a living supervolcano). I’ve lived in two countries. I have travelled some: USA, Thailand, India (twice), Australia (many times), and all over New Zealand. I enjoy gardening (I have a bodhi tree grown from seeds collected from the Bodhi Tree in Bodhgaya), cooking, and reading Scifi. I’m well informed on the history and geography of my local area. I have friends all over the world. I’ve see a circular rainbow, the green-flash, and a number of other rarities. I’ve seen the stars without light pollution. What I’m saying is that I have had plenty of experiences.
I’ve also taught myself Pāli and Chinese. I’ve written more than 600 essays for my blog. And I’ve published around 40 peer-reviewed articles. Without any formal education or training in these fields, (I did audit Sanskrit classes at Cambridge for two years), I’m now routinely publishing in the top Buddhist Studies journals alongside experienced professional scholars. What I’ve done with the Heart Sutra would be a substantial achievement for a pro scholar, for me… well, it’s something, eh? And I’ve done it all in a spirit of service to other Buddhists (who admittedly tend to reward me by spitting in my face, but still).
I’ve had a full life and I’ve done my best to make a contribution, to leave the world a better place than when I arrived (I didn’t chose a good time in history for this, but nonetheless). Getting to study ancient texts is the icing on the cake for me.
Having only one life is poignant, especially when it is marred by chronic ill-health as most of mine has been. But I’ve never been defeatist about it. I get up at 6.30 am every day, 7 days a week, and work through the pain. I’m highly motivated to learn, and to communicate both what I learn and my love of learning. There are always a few beings with “but a little dust in their eyes” who appreciate what I do and make it all worthwhile (although I also lose sight of this quite often).
There is value in Buddhist practices, despite all the narrow-mindedness, parochialism, faux-piety, and dogmatism of religious Buddhism. I don’t actually identify as “secular”, btw. Things are a bit fluid right now, but I’ve long thought of myself as someone who was religious but not spiritual. I’m more of a reformist than a secularist. I find enlightenment fascinating, but not the supernatural explanations of it.
One of the very first things I read about Buddhism—ca 1991 or 1992—that struck a chord was this:
The Second Noble Truth is that dukkha has an identifiable cause. This cause is tanhā, which is generally translated as “desire”, but which has, in common with dukkha, a whole gamut of meanings including an incorrigible tendency to seek satisfaction in the objects of the senses and a desperate will to live unrelated to any serious or systematic attempt to understand what life involves. — Andrew Powell with Graham Harrison. 1989. Living Buddhism. British Museum Press. Page 23. (emphasis added)
So the question is: What is happiness?
If happiness is simply pleasure then, sure, hedonism might make sense. This is after all the premise of the most popular system of morality in our world: utilitarianism (which, like capitalism and individualism is baked into liberalism).
Seeking pleasure doesn’t make one happy. Moreover, this is not Buddhist Wisdom. This is simply common sense. Everybody knows that the pursuit of pleasure has diminishing returns. And if it were needed, there is plenty of modern research on happiness that tells confirms this: happiness is not pleasure. Contrary to what you suggest, hedonism is simply a waste of time.