For Lacan, enjoyment is not the problem as much as the dialectic of desire, which gets started by our entrance into the Symbolic Order, gets in the way of our enjoyment. There is something superficially anti-Buddhist about this, with all its positive talk of desire, but the Buddha did not categorically condemn desire; in fact, Ananda points out (I think to Vacchagota) how critical a certain kind of desire is to getting anywhere on the Path. I think that the Buddha, like Lacan, taught us to think better about our desire, but also more deeply on the relationship desire and volition have to how reality is even constituted.

You should know that Zizek has a strange love-hate relationship with Buddhism, and not having read every single word he’s ever written it’s hard to say exactly what’s going on here. He generally speaks against Buddhism though, in the way one speaks of a good though unfinished or otherwise insufficient idea. I nonetheless think Zizek and Lacan are invaluable to finding a way to… not so much make Buddhism Westernized, but in learning the same lessons in our own culture. That doesn’t mean that Lacan (or Hegel or Nietzsche) was a Buddha, but that he wasn’t so far off either.

Check out my blog. I would like to perhaps work more on this with you.