English version after Chinese version
Paul Tian
在2500年前的一个夜晚，悉达多·乔达摩从迦毗罗卫城的皇宫跑出来，开始了他的寻道之旅。他的目标是离苦得乐。
快乐，一直是我生活中的悖论。常听长辈说，希望我快乐。也常见故事中讲述快乐的人物。快乐，在很多文化的道德标准中，是善行，是被鼓励的人生追求。可是，有些快乐又貌似不被鼓励，并引起担忧甚至是恐惧。
当我把自己封闭起来，试图用逻辑来分辨其中的原委时，总是毫无头绪。在没有道德判断，没有生活经验，没有人际联系，也没有灵性指引的逻辑中，我如何看待不同的快乐呢：酗酒（Binge drinking）中，让自己麻醉并进入幻境；赌桌（gambling table）边，身体感受到兴奋的刺激；以及一次徒步（hiking）中，沁入森林中的放松与惬意。它们有什么不同？有哪一个更好吗？
当然会有不一样，这样的辩论常常会从科学研究的角度切入。比如，在问卷中找到一些生活元素，然后再搜集样本对这些生活元素的报告来获取哪一种快乐更被认同。比如，去解释人体的神经递质如何与自然和运动联系，让我们体会到更多快乐。在科学时代，科学解释当然会释惑，也当然会在很大程度上给人们生活的确定性。这样的辩论有时也可能从生活中的经验入手。比如，听说某人因为赌博而倾家荡产的故事。听说来的生活故事，虽然无法构成统计学意义上的结论；但是，听到这些故事时，总有警世名言般的威慑力量。当我回归本心，听从直觉，则会毫无疑问的认同在森林中hiking的快乐，而对其他几种快乐保持警惕。
快乐，在很长一段时间里都是我生活中的悖论。快乐是好事，快乐是坏事。面对多种多样的快乐和不同人的选择时，常常会觉得茫然无措。
Nakken在《成瘾人格》中，从成瘾与快乐的角度分享了快乐中心（pleasure-centered）的人格特征（Nakken，1996）。在一本讲述成瘾行为的书中，他对快乐中心人格持否定态度也就不足为奇了。在此，我也把他的视角与大家分享。
人们追求快乐无可厚非。人们在追求快乐时，总是期待可以在快乐之上有所超越：寻求快乐背后的意义；在快乐中与自己、他人、世界或灵性世界的更高力量建立联结。
而快乐中心人格的人们却要面对一些潜在的隐患。他们会过分关注自己的体验与感知。所谓过分，其中有两点：其一，这种过分关注，让体验和感知成为主体世界优先级唯一的衡量标准；这也带来了其二，当自我体验与感知成为唯一衡量标准时，主体开始与周围的世界和人逐渐断联，失去了联结的能力。
快乐中心人格的人们常常会有两个迷思。第一，他们会把快乐的强烈感与亲密关系划等号。强烈的快感总是让人身心兴奋，而亲密关系是需要时间的沉淀慢慢累积而成。强烈的快感会让人们误以为感受到亲密；这样的“亲密”往往非常短暂，还没来得及了解彼此，就已匆匆离开。没有亲密支撑的强烈快感并不稳定，它可能一下子从快乐转变成恨和暴力。第二个迷思是隐蔽的：快乐中心人格的人们只是想要一个“好生活”。看上去是很简单的要求；然而，当多了解一下好生活的时候，他们会说想要一个称心如意的职业、对的伴侣、好的车子和学区。他们的快乐都建立在对外部世界的要求和索取之上，而不是内心对生活的欣赏。这样的索取没有尽头，总有更新鲜的事物发生，总有下一个想要的东西。对“好生活”的要求，会让他们永远无法满足。
如果一个人已经被成瘾行为所困扰，那么在对快乐的选择上可能要对自己的内心有所审查。毕竟奖赏回路是成瘾行为的基本运作机制，有些快乐会把成瘾行为牢牢地绑定在个体的生活中。
可对没有成瘾行为的人们呢？对快乐也要如此小心应对吗？只能有有意义的快乐吗？不能寻求单纯的快乐吗？对此，我没有答案。佛陀曾为离苦得乐修得正果。有些人追求快乐，是为了暂时躲避苦恼；有些人追求快乐，则像Nakken所讲到的：可以在快乐之上有所超越：寻求快乐背后的意义；在快乐中与自己、他人、世界或灵性世界的更高力量建立联结。
我们需要躲避苦恼；同时，在我们准备好时，总希望可以面对苦恼，处理苦恼。Nakken提到，快乐是转瞬即逝的，生活本是struggle，人们在struggle中获得意义和升华。佛陀讲人生是苦；苦受、乐受本来平等；苦可以灭尽。
References
Nakken, C. (1996). The addictive personality (2nd ed.). Hazelden Foundation.
English Version
About 2,500 years ago, Siddhartha Gautama left the royal palace of Kapilavastu at one night and began his journey toward enlightenment. His goal was to find happiness and be free from suffering.
Happiness has always felt like a paradox to me. My elders often say they hope I’ll be happy, and I hear stories about happy people. Many cultures see happiness as a good thing and encourage us to pursue it. Still, some types of happiness are discouraged and even make people uneasy.
When I try to figure things out using only logic, I never find a clear answer. Without moral judgment, life experience, social ties, or spiritual guidance, how should I look at different kinds of happiness: The anesthesia and delusion gained from binge drinking; the exciting stimulation felt at the gambling table; or the relaxation and tranquility that permeates the forest during a hike? How are these different? Is one better than the others?
Of course, there are differences. Often, this debate starts with scientific research. Researchers might use surveys to find out which types of happiness people prefer. They may also explain how our brains react to nature and exercise, helping us feel happier. Science often helps clear up confusion and gives people more certainty. This debate can also come from life stories, for example, hearing about someone who lost everything to gambling. Although anecdotal life stories cannot form statistically significant conclusions, hearing them always carries a deterrent force, like a warning proverb. When I return to my true self and listen to my intuition, I will undoubtedly affirm the joy of hiking in the forest, while remaining wary of the other forms of pleasure.
Happiness was a paradox for me. Happiness is a good thing; happiness is a bad thing. When faced with diverse forms of happiness and different people's choices, I often feel confused and unsure.
In The Addictive Personality, Nakken discusses the characteristics of a pleasure-centered personality from the perspective of addiction and pleasure (Nakken, 1996). Since his book is about addiction, it's not surprising that he takes a negative view of the pleasure-centered personality. Here, I'd like to share his perspective.
It is natural for people to seek pleasure. And often, when people chase pleasure, they hope for more than just happiness. They look for meaning behind the joy and want to connect with themselves, others, the world, or their higher powers.
People with a pleasure-centered personality, however, face certain hidden concerns. They become excessively focused on their own experience and perception. This "excessive focus" has two implications: First, this over-concentration makes their experience and perception the sole criterion for priority in their subjective world. Second, when self-experience and perception become the only measure, the subject gradually loses connection with the surrounding world and people, losing the capacity for genuine connection.
People with a pleasure-centered personality often believe in two common myths.
They think that intense pleasure is the same as intimacy. Intense pleasure excites us right away, but real intimacy takes time to build. The thrill can make people believe they are close, but this feeling often fades quickly before they really get to know each other. Pleasure without real intimacy is unstable and can quickly turn from happiness to resentment or even violence.
The second myth is harder to notice: they just want "a good life." At first, this sounds simple. But when you ask what they mean, they list things like the right job, the right partner, the right car, or the right neighborhood. Their happiness depends on getting things from the external world, rather than on inner appreciating life. This kind of wanting never ends—there is always something new to chase. Wanting a "good life" in this way leaves them always unsatisfied.
If someone already struggles with addictive behavior, they may need to look closely at the pleasures they choose. After all, the reward circuit is the basic operating mechanism of addiction, and some pleasures can firmly bind addictive behavior to a person’s life.
But what about people who aren't addicted? Should they also be so careful with pleasure? Does happiness always have to be meaningful? Can't we just enjoy simple, silly joy? I don't have an answer to this. The Buddha achieved enlightenment to find happiness and be free from suffering. Some people seek happiness to temporarily escape their suffering. Others, as Nakken says, pursue it to achieve transcendence: seeking meaning behind the joy, and achieving connection with themselves, others, the world, or the higher powers of the spiritual realm.
But what about people who aren't addicted? Should they also be so careful with pleasure? Does happiness always have to be meaningful? Can't we just enjoy simple, silly joy? I don't know the answer. The Buddha found enlightenment by seeking freedom from suffering. Some people look for happiness to escape their troubles for a while. Others, as Nakken says, hope for more than just happiness. They look for meaning behind the joy and want to connect with themselves, others, the world, or their higher powers.
We need to take a break from struggles, but when we are ready, we also hope to face and handle them. Nakken says pleasure is transient, and life is inherently a struggle. People gain meaning and growth through struggle. The Buddha taught that life is suffering (dukkha); suffering and pleasure are fundamentally equal; and suffering can end.
References:
Nakken, C. (1996). The addictive personality (2nd ed.). Hazelden Foundation.
AI-assisted translation