user7336: I recently listened to a talk by Ajahn Chah, in which he mentions (@ ~14:20-14:53) that wisdom is found when one clings to neither pleasure nor displeasure. This really created a dilemma in my head about why to practice. Clearly, it makes sense that one would not want to cling to displeasure. Indeed, it seems a Buddhist practitioner can get quite far one this idea alone.
It seems natural that the whole reason one begins the path is to learn to not cling to displeasure. Learning to let go of what is bothersome to you is easier, as Ajahn Chah says. I don't believe many people start on the path to also not cling to happiness. Even Ajahn Chah states that those who truly practice also learn to not cling to happiness. How this can be done in the layman's world?
I cannot quite understand why one would want to reject clinging to pleasurable feelings. It seems our very survival as humans is based around our brain giving us pleasurable feelings to reinforce behaviors that keep us surviving. I.e. eating sweet food gives dopamine because it correlates (not necessarily entails) with us sustaining our survival. If I decide to do something purely for pleasure, does that mean that I have clung to that pleasure? I.e. I took a bath tonight for the reason of enjoying it and I did enjoy it. Does that entail that I've clung to the pleasure since my purpose for taking the bath was for pleasure? How would I know if I've clung to it?
At least in my life, my whole idea of having my career is based on the fact that it makes me happy and it's what I want to do (I do it for the purpose of pleasure). Why would I reject this? And if so, how could I even do so without becoming a monk and dedicating my life only to the goal of rejection of both pleasure and displeasure while only caring for my basic needs of survival (food, clothing, shelter, sleep). In a paradoxical sense, it even seems plausible that one's reasoning for becoming a monk would be for the pleasure one derives in the idea of working toward enlightenment. If not for the pleasure resulting from a task (or subsequent result), why would one do it?
Tangentially, it seems the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure would be suicide. I'm not suicidal myself, but I just ask in a theoretical sense. Why would one not just do this? I presume the answer is related in some way to rebirth, but I am not sure.

user16635: There is a distinction between feeling and clinging to that we should appreciate here. If I stub a toe, I feel displeasure; if I eat a good meal I feel pleasure. These are simple arisings from the biology of form, which are more or less unavoidable so long as we have form. But if ten minutes after I stub my toe I'm still angry about it, and berating that stupid chair for getting in my way... If the next time I want to eat my brain is buzzing around planning out how to acquire something 'delicious' instead of that regular old boring food... This is clinging to pain and pleasure.
People talk about avoiding suffering because it's a simple, direct, and easy concept. It's like that old joke where a patient says to a doctor "My arm hurts when I do this" and the doctor responds "Well, don't do that!" What most people don't realize is that clinging to pleasure is the source of a tremendous amount of suffering. I mean, think what happens if you get the idea of a perfect meal stuck in your head, such that ever meal you eat fails by comparison? Perfectly good meals that would otherwise fill you with pleasure now suddenly seem drab, boring, and displeasurable. You grind your way through meal after meal, barely tasting them, because your mind's eye is focused on that grand prize of succulent succotash.
If you simply allow yourself to feel pleasure and pain as it arises without being attached, most of what you experience will be pleasurable; life is (on the whole) good. If you are attached to seeking out pleasure and avoiding pain, you will inflict a lot of misery on yourself and others. It sounds paradoxical, almost self-contradictory, but reflect on it and you'll see the sense in it.

user295: 
OP: Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure
(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta
Similarly,

The latent tendency of lust rāgânusaya lies in a pleasant feeling.
The latent tendency of aversion paṭighânusaya lies in a painful feeling.
The latent tendency of ignorance avijjā’nusaya lies in a neutral feeling.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

OP: How this can be done in the layman's world?

Whatever feeling on feels one should:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
For a more detailed explanation see this answer.

user254: The first time I read Buddhist doctrine it said something like, "Suffering is wanting to have what you can't have, wanting to keep what you can't keep, the craving to live, even the craving to die." Perhaps that isn't the most accurate translation, but it's not a bad paraphrase, so perhaps you can see from that why "clinging" is unfortunate.
Perhaps it's clinging which provides an object for craving ("I enjoyed my previous bath so now I want another").
It can be problematic too if pleasure conflicts with duty or virtue -- maybe addiction is when you cling to doing something because it was pleasurable, but to the detriment of what it's better to do.

How would I know if I've clung to it?

One might more-or-less assume that's so, as a lay-person -- in an absolute sense -- and perhaps by definition even in the early stages of enlightenment.
You might be more-or-less content with behaviour which is (relatively) harmless and not immoral, even if it is clingy (in my opinion).

Why would I reject this?

I think laypeople maybe don't, by definition (with a few exceptions).

In a paradoxical sense, it even etc

Yes that paradox is the subject of the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).
And this may be a related topic, or at least an interesting read: Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?

user43: If I decide to do something purely for pleasure, does that mean that I have clung to that pleasure?
You got it. Doing anything merely for pleasure is a trap, because like you yourself said, pleasure is the superficial appearance that quite often is a false indicator of the long-term benefits of the underlying activity. 
Buddhism teaches us to not be fooled by the superficial appearances ("illusions") because they are misleading and thus conducive to suffering. To not be fooled means, to not take them at their face value. Pleasure is one such instance out of the broad class of superficial appearances that we should learn to not reify. To not reify means to not assume that the appearance is reality. (In Buddhist context when we say "to cling" it means "to reify", "to confuse appearance for reality", and therefore "to build a system of expectations on the illusory foundation".)
one's reasoning for becoming a monk would be for the pleasure one derives in the idea of working toward enlightenment
Yes, of course. This is an established fact in Buddhism, that the very confusion of reification is exactly what motivates us to seek Enlightenment in the first place. Reifying the imaginary Enlightenment as something awesome and cool is the useful mistake that makes the path to Enlightenment possible.
the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure...
...would be to stop overgeneralizing phenomena based on their identifying characteristics, to stop reifying those generalizations as something real, and to stop allowing those reifications to motivate one's daily activity.
How this can be done in the layman's world?
Getting back to the topic of not clinging to pleasure and displeasure, this means to stop confusing pleasure/displeasure on one hand with benefit or harm on the other. When you act with the long term benefit as the goal, pleasure or displeasure are not your primary concerns.

user471: Have you heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article)?

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey must let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance of how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would become free from his suffering.
Similarly, you don't let go of clinging to both pleasure and pain by forcing yourself e.g. by avoiding taking a hot bath or eating good food or pursuing a career. Instead, you have to cultivate wisdom to overcome ignorance. When ignorance is uprooted, craving would be overcome, and suffering would be ended.
The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence in pleasures and extreme asceticism do not lead to freedom from suffering. Rather, one must seek the Middle Way through the Noble Eightfold Path (see SN 56.11). The Noble Eightfold Path leads to cultivation of wisdom that would result in the uprooting of ignorance, and with that, craving.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

user17841: 
Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure

Herein lies your main misunderstanding of Buddhist (and Taoist) thought, namely in thinking that the expression pain-and-pleasure is referring to two separate concepts (as is evident from the placing of the word both before the aforementioned phrase), instead of one indivisible unit (as is actually the case).

wisdom is found when one clings to neither pleasure nor displeasure.

That's because pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin, inasmuch as the same underlying infrastructure (or mental faculty) is ultimately responsible for enabling us to perceive either aspect of this intrinsically dual or twofold reality. To do away with one is to do away with the other, and to embrace one is to embrace the other, the two facets being thus inexorably linked to each other. Picture, if you will, two convicts, with a rope tied around their neck, standing on a single scaffold. By removing the common foundation from underneath their feet, both simultaneously fall to their death.

I cannot quite understand why one would want to reject clinging to pleasurable feelings.

Because (obsessive) clinging, in time, engenders addiction (bhava), whose inevitable end is depression (dukkha), as can be glanced from the chain of causality illustrated by the Twelve Nidanas.

the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure would be suicide.

Highly doubtful, since the inability to fulfill one's carnal cravings constitutes nothing less than sheer and utter torment for the disembodied (but not dispassionate) mind.

user13375: Dhammadatu gave an excellent answer that I wholeheartedly suggest you reflect on, but here is something a bit more personal that may also be helpful.
For a long time, I had much the same question about Buddhadharma that you have. There was something compelling and wise that struck me about it, but there were also aspects I found puzzling and concerning. It seemed to me, for quite a long time, that the Buddha’s answer to Tennyson’s claim, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all!” was in fact, “No! It isn’t.” This disturbed me as I’ve always thought Tennyson was correct.
When I told this to my teacher he laughed gregariously and told me that I misunderstood the Buddha’s teaching and to reflect some more. He said it was quite the opposite in fact. That the Buddha instructed us to practice love to an extent that we make it immeasurable. The problem was that we stupid beings don’t know what “love” actually is :)
It took me a long time to understand this in a non-intellectual way. To get a brief glimpse of what the Buddha might be intending. Suffice to say, I think my teacher was correct. The Buddha Dharma is all about increasing happiness and love and beneficial qualities. Here is what gave me a brief glimpse...
I’ve always been particularly attracted to dogs. From a very early age I seemed unusually drawn to them to an uncommon extent. It would not be off the mark to say that I am attached to dogs and the notion of them and to individual dogs as well. Anyway, I’ve owned many dogs over the course of my life and befriended nearly all that I have come across. It is extremely common that when I am walking down the street and encounter a dog - on leash or free - that I won’t stop to greet the animal and share a brief moment of joy connecting with it. In those moments, there is great pleasure and joy I feel.
What I came to realize is that I have befriended thousands and thousands of dogs this way. For the vast majority, I have one interaction and then never see them again. I do not purposefully go out to meet dogs or seek them out by walking in dog friendly neighborhoods or anything. I don’t have any expectation that when I meet a dog like this that I will ever see them again. It does not bother me in the slightest that I most likely will not. I don’t walk away from these encounters with a tinge of sadness reflecting that I won’t meet them again. The moments are full of joy with little overt clinging or attachment to the individual dogs at least. I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that I love these dogs.
Now, my own dog is another matter. And all that I have owned in the past as well. There is great attachment to them and when I inevitably lose them due to age or sickness or karma there is unimaginable grief and suffering. I am attached to them in every sense. When I leave them for a trip or vacation there is longing for them. I miss them terribly. Our reunions are exaggerated and I project onto them all kinds of mental fabrications.
The difference between the two experiences has led to a good amount of reflection. It is not a perfect example or analogy, but put simply I think the former exhibit lots of joy and pleasure without clinging while the latter is chock full of clinging and attachment and the overall imprimatur of it is one of suffering.
Maybe reflect and see if there isn’t something analogous in your life. Moments of spontaneous pleasure that you’re not consciously seeking out and that doesn’t result in gross clinging or attachment. Reflect and see if there are other moments of a similar kind that are subject to gross clinging. What is the character of each? How does the mind work in each? What emotions result? Are they comfortable or strained and disturbing?
Anyway, I now have some faith that what my teacher said was correct. It is my own misunderstanding to think that Buddha Dharma does not result in happiness and joy or that the Buddha was somehow counseling that we give up all love and pleasure and renounce happiness. What the Buddha wants us to do is realize that our stupid notions of love and happiness and pleasure are full of misunderstandings that lead to nothing but suffering for ourselves and others. It’s our job to investigate according to the Buddha’s instruction to find the truth about these things.
Hope this is helpful!

user8157: Not clinging to pleasure does not mean there is no pleasure. It is the opposite. The more there is non-clinging, there more there is pleasure. For example, the suttas say the pleasure of 'jhana' ('meditative absorption') is reached by making 'non-clinging' the meditation object (SN 48.10). Or the suttas say Nibbana is the supreme pleasure (Dhammapada 204). 
When Ajahn Chah refers to the word 'like', this is not synonymous with the words 'pleasure' & 'happiness'. 'Pleasure' is a 'feeling'. Where as 'like' is a 'view' or 'opinion'. 

7336: <p>I recently listened to a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlzqhcHSgQo&amp;t=1110s" rel="noreferrer">talk</a> by Ajahn Chah, in which he mentions (@ ~14:20-14:53) that wisdom is found when one clings to neither pleasure nor displeasure. This really created a dilemma in my head about why to practice. Clearly, it makes sense that one would not want to cling to displeasure. Indeed, it seems a Buddhist practitioner can get quite far one this idea alone.</p>

<p>It seems natural that the whole reason one begins the path is to learn to not cling to displeasure. Learning to let go of what is bothersome to you is easier, as Ajahn Chah says. I don't believe many people start on the path to also not cling to happiness. Even Ajahn Chah states that those who truly practice also learn to not cling to happiness. <strong>How this can be done in the layman's world?</strong></p>

<p>I cannot quite understand why one would want to reject clinging to pleasurable feelings. It seems our very survival as humans is based around our brain giving us pleasurable feelings to reinforce behaviors that keep us surviving. I.e. eating sweet food gives dopamine because it correlates (not necessarily entails) with us sustaining our survival. <strong>If I decide to do something purely for pleasure, does that mean that I have clung to that pleasure?</strong> I.e. I took a bath tonight for the reason of enjoying it and I did enjoy it. Does that entail that I've clung to the pleasure since my purpose for taking the bath was for pleasure? How would I know if I've clung to it?</p>

<p>At least in my life, my whole idea of having my career is based on the fact that it makes me happy and it's what I want to do (I do it for the purpose of pleasure). <strong>Why would I reject this?</strong> And if so, how could I even do so without becoming a monk and dedicating my life only to the goal of rejection of both pleasure and displeasure while only caring for my basic needs of survival (food, clothing, shelter, sleep). <strong>In a paradoxical sense, it even seems plausible that one's reasoning for becoming a monk would be for the pleasure one derives in the idea of working toward enlightenment.</strong> <strong>If not for the pleasure resulting from a task (or subsequent result), why would one do it?</strong></p>

<p>Tangentially, it seems the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure would be suicide. I'm not suicidal myself, but I just ask in a theoretical sense. Why would one not just do this? I presume the answer is related in some way to rebirth, but I am not sure.</p>
 16635: <p>There is a distinction between <em>feeling</em> and <em>clinging to</em> that we should appreciate here. If I stub a toe, I <em>feel</em> displeasure; if I eat a good meal I <em>feel</em> pleasure. These are simple arisings from the biology of form, which are more or less unavoidable so long as we have form. But if ten minutes after I stub my toe I'm still angry about it, and berating that stupid chair for getting in my way... If the next time I want to eat my brain is buzzing around planning out how to acquire something 'delicious' instead of that regular old boring food... This is <em>clinging to</em> pain and pleasure.</p>

<p>People talk about avoiding suffering because it's a simple, direct, and easy concept. It's like that old joke where a patient says to a doctor "My arm hurts when I do <em>this</em>" and the doctor responds "Well, don't do that!" What most people don't realize is that clinging to pleasure is the source of a tremendous amount of suffering. I mean, think what happens if you get the idea of a perfect meal stuck in your head, such that ever meal you eat fails by comparison? Perfectly good meals that would otherwise fill you with pleasure now suddenly seem drab, boring, and displeasurable. You grind your way through meal after meal, barely tasting them, because your mind's eye is focused on that grand prize of succulent succotash.</p>

<p>If you simply allow yourself to feel pleasure and pain as it arises without being attached, most of what you experience will be pleasurable; life is (on the whole) good. If you are attached to seeking out pleasure and avoiding pain, you will inflict a lot of misery on yourself and others. It sounds paradoxical, almost self-contradictory, but reflect on it and you'll see the sense in it.</p>
 295: <blockquote>
<p><strong>OP: Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure</strong></p>
<p>(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;</p>
<p>(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;</p>
<p>(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/31.1-Pahana-S-s36.3-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pahāna Sutta</a></p>
<p>Similarly,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The latent tendency of lust rāgânusaya lies in a pleasant feeling.</p>
<p>The latent tendency of aversion paṭighânusaya lies in a painful feeling.</p>
<p>The latent tendency of ignorance avijjā’nusaya lies in a neutral feeling.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cūla Vedalla Sutta</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>OP: How this can be done in the layman's world?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whatever feeling on feels one should:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If he feels a pleasant feeling,</p>
<ul>
<li>he understands that it is impermanent;</li>
<li>he understands that it is not to be clung to;</li>
<li>he understands that there is no delight in it.</li>
</ul>
<p>If he feels a painful feeling,</p>
<ul>
<li>he understands that it is impermanent;</li>
<li>he understands that it is not to be clung to;</li>
<li>he understands that there is no delight in it.</li>
</ul>
<p>If he feels a neutral feeling,</p>
<ul>
<li>he understands that it is impermanent;</li>
<li>he understands that it is not to be clung to;</li>
<li>he understands that there is no delight in it.</li>
</ul>
<p>If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.</p>
<p>If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.</p>
<p>If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.17-Dhatu-Vibhanga-S-m140-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta</a></p>
<p>For a more detailed explanation see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/36912/295">this answer</a>.</p>
 254: <p>The first time I read Buddhist doctrine it said something like, "Suffering is wanting to have what you can't have, wanting to keep what you can't keep, the craving to live, even the craving to die." Perhaps that isn't the most accurate translation, but it's not a bad paraphrase, so perhaps you can see from that why "clinging" is unfortunate.</p>

<p>Perhaps it's clinging which provides an object for craving ("I enjoyed my previous bath so now I want another").</p>

<p>It can be problematic too if pleasure conflicts with duty or virtue -- maybe addiction is when you cling to doing something because it was pleasurable, but to the detriment of what it's better to do.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How would I know if I've clung to it?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One might more-or-less assume that's so, as a lay-person -- in an absolute sense -- and perhaps by definition even in the early <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">stages of enlightenment</a>.</p>

<p>You might be more-or-less content with behaviour which is (relatively) harmless and not immoral, even if it is clingy (in my opinion).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Why would I reject this?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think laypeople maybe don't, by definition (with a few exceptions).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In a paradoxical sense, it even etc</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes that paradox is the subject of the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15)</a>.</p>

<p>And this may be a related topic, or at least an interesting read: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/17746/254">Why do the Noble Truths talk about &#39;craving&#39;, instead of about &#39;attachment&#39;?</a></p>
 43: <h2>If I decide to do something purely for pleasure, does that mean that I have clung to that pleasure?</h2>

<p>You got it. Doing anything merely for pleasure is a trap, because like you yourself said, pleasure is the superficial appearance that quite often is a <em>false</em> indicator of the long-term benefits of the underlying activity. </p>

<p>Buddhism teaches us to not be fooled by the superficial appearances ("illusions") because they are misleading and thus conducive to suffering. To not be fooled means, to not take them at their face value. Pleasure is one such instance out of the broad class of superficial appearances that we should learn to not reify. To not reify means to not assume that the appearance is reality. (In Buddhist context when we say "to cling" it means "to reify", "to confuse appearance for reality", and therefore "to build a system of expectations on the illusory foundation".)</p>

<h2>one's reasoning for becoming a monk would be for the pleasure one derives in the idea of working toward enlightenment</h2>

<p>Yes, of course. This is an established fact in Buddhism, that the very confusion of reification is exactly what motivates us to seek Enlightenment in the first place. Reifying the imaginary Enlightenment as something awesome and cool is the useful mistake that makes the path to Enlightenment possible.</p>

<h2>the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure...</h2>

<p>...would be to stop overgeneralizing phenomena based on their identifying characteristics, to stop reifying those generalizations as something real, and to stop allowing those reifications to motivate one's daily activity.</p>

<h2>How this can be done in the layman's world?</h2>

<p>Getting back to the topic of not clinging to pleasure and displeasure, this means to stop confusing pleasure/displeasure on one hand with benefit or harm on the other. When you act with the long term benefit as the goal, pleasure or displeasure are not your primary concerns.</p>
 471: <p>Have you heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a>)?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0060589469" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance</a>, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The monkey must let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.</p>

<p>But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance of how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would become free from his suffering.</p>

<p>Similarly, you don't let go of clinging to both pleasure and pain by forcing yourself e.g. by avoiding taking a hot bath or eating good food or pursuing a career. Instead, you have to cultivate wisdom to overcome ignorance. When ignorance is uprooted, craving would be overcome, and suffering would be ended.</p>

<p>The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence in pleasures and extreme asceticism do not lead to freedom from suffering. Rather, one must seek the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8164/471">Middle Way</a> through the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Noble Eightfold Path</a> (see <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 56.11</a>). The Noble Eightfold Path leads to cultivation of wisdom that would result in the uprooting of ignorance, and with that, craving.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/YNJMJ.jpg" alt="The old South Indian Monkey Trap"></a>
(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)</p>
 17841: <blockquote>
  <p><em>Rejecting clinging to <strong>both</strong> pleasure <strong>and</strong> displeasure</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Herein lies your <em>main</em> misunderstanding of Buddhist (and Taoist) thought, namely in thinking that the expression <em>pain-and-pleasure</em> is referring to two <em>separate</em> concepts (as is evident from the placing of the word <em>both</em> before the aforementioned phrase), instead of one <em>indivisible</em> unit (as is actually the case).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>wisdom is found when one clings to neither pleasure nor displeasure.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>That's because <strong>pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin</strong>, inasmuch as the same underlying infrastructure (or mental faculty) is ultimately responsible for enabling us to perceive either aspect of this intrinsically dual or twofold reality. To do away with one is to do away with the other, and to embrace one is to embrace the other, the two facets being thus inexorably linked to each other. Picture, if you will, two convicts, with a rope tied around their neck, standing on a <em>single</em> scaffold. By removing the <em>common</em> foundation from underneath their feet, both <em>simultaneously</em> fall to their death.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>I cannot quite understand why one would want to reject clinging to pleasurable feelings.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because (obsessive) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinging" rel="nofollow noreferrer">clinging</a>, in time, engenders <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction" rel="nofollow noreferrer">addiction</a> (<em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava" rel="nofollow noreferrer">bhava</a></em>), whose inevitable end is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(mood)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">depression</a> (<em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dukkha</a></em>), as can be glanced from the chain of causality illustrated by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratityasamutpada#Twelve-fold_chain" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Twelve Nidanas</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure would be suicide.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Highly doubtful, since the inability to fulfill one's <em>carnal</em> cravings constitutes nothing less than sheer and utter <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka" rel="nofollow noreferrer">torment</a> for the <em>disembodied</em> (but not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dispassionate</a>) mind.</p>
 13375: <p>Dhammadatu gave an excellent answer that I wholeheartedly suggest you reflect on, but here is something a bit more personal that may also be helpful.</p>

<p>For a long time, I had much the same question about Buddhadharma that you have. There was something compelling and wise that struck me about it, but there were also aspects I found puzzling and concerning. It seemed to me, for quite a long time, that the Buddha’s answer to Tennyson’s claim, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all!” was in fact, “No! It isn’t.” This disturbed me as I’ve always thought Tennyson was correct.</p>

<p>When I told this to my teacher he laughed gregariously and told me that I misunderstood the Buddha’s teaching and to reflect some more. He said it was quite the opposite in fact. That the Buddha instructed us to practice love to an extent that we make it immeasurable. The problem was that we stupid beings don’t know what “love” actually is :)</p>

<p>It took me <strong>a long time</strong> to understand this in a non-intellectual way. To get a brief glimpse of what the Buddha might be intending. Suffice to say, I think my teacher was correct. The Buddha Dharma is all about increasing happiness and love and beneficial qualities. Here is what gave me a brief glimpse...</p>

<p>I’ve always been particularly attracted to dogs. From a very early age I seemed unusually drawn to them to an uncommon extent. It would not be off the mark to say that I am attached to dogs and the notion of them and to individual dogs as well. Anyway, I’ve owned many dogs over the course of my life and befriended nearly all that I have come across. It is extremely common that when I am walking down the street and encounter a dog - on leash or free - that I won’t stop to greet the animal and share a brief moment of joy connecting with it. In those moments, there is great pleasure and joy I feel.</p>

<p>What I came to realize is that I have befriended thousands and thousands of dogs this way. For the vast majority, I have one interaction and then never see them again. I do not purposefully go out to meet dogs or seek them out by walking in dog friendly neighborhoods or anything. I don’t have any expectation that when I meet a dog like this that I will ever see them again. It does not bother me in the slightest that I most likely will not. I don’t walk away from these encounters with a tinge of sadness reflecting that I won’t meet them again. The moments are full of joy with little overt clinging or attachment to the individual dogs at least. I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that I love these dogs.</p>

<p>Now, my own dog is another matter. And all that I have owned in the past as well. There is great attachment to them and when I <strong>inevitably</strong> lose them due to age or sickness or karma there is unimaginable grief and suffering. I am attached to them in every sense. When I leave them for a trip or vacation there is longing for them. I miss them terribly. Our reunions are exaggerated and I project onto them all kinds of mental fabrications.</p>

<p>The difference between the two experiences has led to a good amount of reflection. It is not a perfect example or analogy, but put simply I think the former exhibit lots of joy and pleasure without clinging while the latter is chock full of clinging and attachment and the overall imprimatur of it is one of suffering.</p>

<p>Maybe reflect and see if there isn’t something analogous in your life. Moments of spontaneous pleasure that you’re not consciously seeking out and that doesn’t result in gross clinging or attachment. Reflect and see if there are other moments of a similar kind that <strong>are</strong> subject to gross clinging. What is the character of each? How does the mind work in each? What emotions result? Are they comfortable or strained and disturbing?</p>

<p>Anyway, I now have some faith that what my teacher said was correct. It is my own misunderstanding to think that Buddha Dharma does not result in happiness and joy or that the Buddha was somehow counseling that we give up all love and pleasure and renounce happiness. What the Buddha wants us to do is realize that our stupid notions of love and happiness and pleasure are full of misunderstandings that lead to nothing but suffering for ourselves and others. It’s our job to investigate according to the Buddha’s instruction to find the truth about these things.</p>

<p>Hope this is helpful!</p>
 8157: <p>Not clinging to pleasure does not mean there is no pleasure. It is the opposite. The more there is non-clinging, there more there is pleasure. For example, the suttas say the pleasure of 'jhana' ('meditative absorption') is reached by making 'non-clinging' the meditation object (SN 48.10). Or the suttas say Nibbana is the supreme pleasure (Dhammapada 204). </p>

<p>When Ajahn Chah refers to the word 'like', this is not synonymous with the words 'pleasure' &amp; 'happiness'. 'Pleasure' is a 'feeling'. Where as 'like' is a 'view' or 'opinion'. </p>
