Even refined equanimity is seen as dukkha and is let go of, so it’s hard to see how it’s hedonism either Cyrenaic or Epicurean.
Namo Buddhaya!
Hedonism as in more or less giving himself up to degeneracy or sensual enjoyment.
I think a person like this can’t be fully restrained but he can to an extent be incentivized, in many ways, to behave in a way that wins him good friends. But if all things are otherwise equal he will be much worse off for maintaining the view.
I haven’t done a sociological peer-reviewed study, it’s just my observations IRL. ymmv
A Buddhist or member of another religion might go to the temple for a meditation program or religious service. At the same time, a secularist is likely to go shopping for things they don’t need, go out to a night club, socialize with friends, etc. As I mentioned previously, this does not mean that all secularists or all religionists are like this. There are hedonists who are followers of religions just as there are secular people who are not hedonists.
I just did a quick google search and found this study which appears to support that agnostics and atheist are more likely to pursue pleasures, but certainly not all of them and it differentiates between different types of atheism, for example “New Atheism” etc.
Hedonism is beating all religions with ease.
Bhikkhu Pesala
Namo Buddhaya!
I think this is completely reasonable.
A person can have much incentive to behave moderately in regards to sensual pleasure and i don’t see why they would not be able to enjoy meditative attainments.
People see that sensual pleasure corrupts and all humans enjoy mastering their proclivities & behavior.
Much morality is obviously strategic based on game theory eg
In other games one can prove things like strategies punishing bad behavior are better than those which do not and that strategies with forgiveness are better than those without.
Cooperation is generally the best long term strategy across games and this naturally incentivizes praiseworthy behavior because cooperation is so critical and difficult to win.
They still have fear of shame, guilt, punishment, only lacking in fear of the other world.
I agree.
Though it does seem like the ultimate goal of escaping from suffering is a “hedonistic” goal in the philosophical sense of the term. A hedonistic conception of wellbeing is one on which wellbeing consists in the presence of positive mental states and the absence of negative ones. If positive mental states are not possible, then this entails that complete absence of mental states would be better. For example, I don’t think that it would be inconsistent for someone to be a hedonist and to opt for euthanasia because the remainder of their existence will consist only in suffering. Rather, this conclusion seems to follow from hedonism. Nor do I think that it would be inconsistent for a hedonist to opt for euthanasia because all mental states are suffering (though the position that all mental states are suffering would probably be unpopular).
The case of euthanasia seems somewhat analogous to some conceptions of nibbāna. All states of consciousness are suffering, therefore it is better to not have them at all. The difference with the Epicureans just seems to lie in which particular states are suffering or not.
In any case, it seems to me that a lot of Buddhists want to resist the conclusion that all mental states are suffering. In this case there doesn’t really seem to be a substantive difference with an Epicurean hedonist.
There are also some hedonists who do seem to think that all mental states are suffering (maybe Schopenhauer), though he was influenced by Buddhism.
Actually when you practice precepts and giving, the result will be a hedonism life.
See example of Yasa in Vinaya.
… While Yasa was spending the four months of the rainy season in the rainy-season house, he was attended on by female musicians, and he did not come down from that house.
On one occasion, while he was enjoying himself with worldly pleasures, he fell asleep before his attendants. He then woke up first, while the oil lamp was still burning.
He saw his attendants sleeping:
one with a lute in her armpit, another with a tabor on her neck, still another with a drum in her armpit; one with hair disheveled, another drooling, still another talking in her sleep. It was like a charnel ground before his very eyes.
When he saw this, the downside became clear, and a feeling of repulsion stayed with him.
He uttered a heartfelt exclamation:
“Oh the oppression! Oh the affliction!”
He then put on his golden shoes and went to the entrance door. Spirits opened the door, thinking, “No-one should create any obstacle for Yasa going forth into homelessness.” He went to the town gate, and again it was opened by spirits. He then went to the deer park at Isipatana.
Just then, after getting up early in the morning, the Buddha was doing walking meditation outside. When the Buddha saw Yasa coming, he stepped down from his walking path and sat down on the prepared seat.
As he was getting close to the Buddha, Yasa uttered the same heartfelt exclamation: “Oh the oppression! Oh the affliction!”
The Buddha said, “This isn’t oppressive, Yasa, this isn’t afflictive. Come and sit down. I’ll give you a teaching.”
Eventually a hedonism lifestyle will be abandoned due to living through it and seen it as suffering and one is seeing a true dhamma.
Problem is how often one can hear true dhamma.
How do we feel about our own demise, demise of what is the question.
Demise of our bodies: same for secular and non-secular, depends on degree of attachment.
Demise of our personality: same for secular and non-secular, depends on degree of attachment.
Now where things become more distinct and secular vs non secular deviate is things like what about original ideas or even something more core to our being that we can’t exactly pin down. Speaking as someone who is agnostic to reincarnation, lokas, devas etc
Our core may live on if others saw something in it that’s worth preserving and emulating. Or they may not even continue because of us but because someone else with the same “core factors” did a better job at inspiring others.
At the end of the day we may have ww3 , life no longer sustained on earth and none of the above would be preserved by anybody.
So I guess positively affecting a loved one now through these core factors is what matters most.