Sometimes, this distinction is not understood, and some people mistakenly believe that one should not enjoy things in order to attain enlightenment. This seems to be particularly common in Buddhist circles. Some people, following the teachings of Shakyamuni, say that one should not enjoy things too much, and that if one is enjoying oneself, enlightenment is impossible.

Well, I think that in some specific schools of Buddhism, the teachings may lead to such an interpretation. However, from my perspective, those who say such things are either mixing up enjoyment and attachment to enjoyment, or they do not understand the distinction between the two.

This is not just a matter of wordplay or semantics; it is about whether one can actually recognize and treat enjoyment and attachment as separate things in one's cognition. This is not just a matter of expression, but a fundamental misunderstanding of what samadhi (meditative absorption) truly is.

From my point of view, enjoyment is fine in itself, but one should not become attached to it.

As humans, we naturally seek certain pleasures, and even in those cases, if one chooses to engage in them selectively, with an awareness of samadhi, it is not considered attachment. The Buddha taught that it is foolish to desire more of the same enjoyment, or to lament the loss of enjoyment; that is attachment. That teaching is true, but it does not mean that one should not enjoy things.

I think what the Buddha was saying is that attachment disappears in the state of samadhi.

Sometimes, I see people who have studied Buddhism interpreting that enjoying things themselves is a bad thing. However, that is not the main point.

The Buddha was literally saying that attachment is bad. Perhaps the Buddha did not intend to convey a negative meaning or prohibition, but simply stated that, as a phenomenon, attachment disappears when one attains enlightenment. It is likely that this was the basic idea, and that the methods of practice that the Buddha used to achieve that state led to discussions about asceticism. Alternatively, it is possible that later generations freely interpreted these ideas and turned them into rules or prohibitions.

Since I cannot ask the Buddha directly, I can only speculate. However, even if the Buddha had issued such a prohibition, there is a slight difference between that prohibition and the state of enlightenment. I imagine that the Buddha understood this, and that he was careful to distinguish between setting rules for practice and the state of enlightenment.

■ Enjoyment is good, but don't be attached to it.

Therefore, even if a sect prohibits enjoyment, it simply means that the sect interprets it that way. In reality, enjoyment and enlightenment can coexist. However, there are also pleasures that can destroy enlightenment, so the prohibition may be useful to some extent. But I think the sectarian way of thinking has spread too much, leading to a misunderstanding that enjoyment is not allowed.

The correct approach is to enjoy things as enjoyment, but not to be attached to them.

However, many people don't know the correct way to enjoy things. If they don't know the correct way, then it's better to prohibit the wrong, hedonistic pleasures.

So, what is the correct way to enjoy things?

To offer the enjoyment itself to God.
To offer the results of the enjoyment to God, or to entrust them to God.

That's all there is to it, and God will enjoy it with you.

But meaningless suffering arises because of human ego and attachment.

The solution is not to stop enjoying things, but to directly stop the attachment itself.

I repeat, some people who have studied in a sect may see others enjoying themselves and think, "That person is straying from the path of enlightenment," and gossip about them. But such talk is quite different from the actual state of enlightenment, and the path of enlightenment is actually much simpler. There is no need for rules; just having the awareness of samadhi is enough.

Even if someone appears to be enjoying themselves, it may be samadhi. Conversely, even if someone doesn't appear to be enjoying themselves, it may be samadhi. In either case, if it is samadhi, it is filled with happiness, gratitude, and love. Whether or not it appears to be enjoyable on the surface has little to do with samadhi. Because samadhi is always filled with gratitude, love, and happiness. Even if you have that foundation of samadhi, you can appear to be enjoying worldly things, or you may not need to do anything at all. Regardless of the surface appearance, you are always in samadhi. Therefore, whether or not someone appears to be enjoying worldly things has nothing to do with enlightenment.

However, there are pleasures that can destroy enlightenment, and if one is seeking enlightenment, it might be better to avoid them.