Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic  Elrond,
What you shared is interesting. But I don't quite understand how Life itself is full of suffering. |
"Now this ... is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."
The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra in 12 Volumes
Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic Even Steve in fact did say in one of his blog entries that his belief system (when he wrote it) resembled Buddhism in significant features. |
I would like
Steve Pavlina's thoughts on this if he would be so kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic Buddhism virtually nihilifies the field of personal development. There's nothing to do to gain happiness now except meditate and attain to Nirvana. |
No. You obtain Nirvana by following the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path constitutes more than meditation, for example being moral and having respect for all other life.
And The Noble Eightfold Path isn't about instant gratification; you don't sit down to meditate and than feel perfectly happy with that. Sometimes the practices and guidelines are tough and painful to follow. The Buddha endorsed neither self-mortification nor self-indulgence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic I mean, all worries like health, managing finances, relationships, developing the intellect etc. would just vanish if you are a true seeker of happiness, is it not so? |
Many buddhists become monks, and thereby remove themselves from the worries and desires of leading a normal life (wether that means being a peasant or a corporate executive). But practicing mindfulness and meditation would most probably lead to less worry and more peace of mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic But then we find that if we live a healthy life, we will be happy most of the time. |
In Buddhism, everything can be thought of as suffering, because everything is impermanent. Even a happy life. See what I first wrote/qouted in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic And, honestly speaking, to complain about the one gram of pain that comes with 3 grams of happiness (from a healthy lifestyle) is not really being mature, is it? |
So to pursue a path of enlightenment and eventually transcend the cycle of life itself is "not really being mature"???
You could similarily say to the spiritualy-minded folks in the spirituality forum that by trying to obtain enlightenment and/or perfection they are "complaining" and "not really being mature, are you?"
Or you could say it to everyone that seeks to attain happiness and minimise suffering: this whole forum.
The Four Noble Truths are presented like a doctor:
1. Diagnose an illness (life is suffering)
2. Explain why you are sick (the origin of suffering)
3. That you can eventually be healed (suffering’s cessation)
4. How to be healed (the way to suffering’s cessation)
If you had a disease, you would have it diaognesed and cured, right? If someone had a bad hip which gave them alot of pain and the inconvinience of having to use a cane to walk around, it would be best to get that hip cured, right? Well, Buddhism says that pain (the hip) can be transcended (cured), and it shows how.
And, honestly speaking, were does this 1/4 pain + 3/4 happiness ratio come from? It could have something to do with Buddhism, or maybe something Steve Pavlina wrote, but it seems that you are just taking a concept out of thin air and juxtaposing it with Buddhism without even explaining it.
Would you explain to the people in the internment camps in Auschwitz that they can lead a ”healthy lifestyle” and obtain this elusive ratio? Or to the victims of a tsunami? Please understand that I am not questioning your morality, but rather the universal nature of leading a ”healthy lifestyle”. Sure, following Buddhist guidelines would not necessarily be instant salvation for someone in a difficult position in life (though it would lessen ones karma). But following The Noble Eightfold Path would eventually lead to Nirvana; which means to never again experience Auschwitch or pain of any kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic Also, many people will favor the 1-unit-pain-with-3-units-happiness scheme instead of the no-happiness-no-pain scheme (because Buddhism advocates shunyata or "zeroness"). |
Sunyata/Shunyata more commonly means ”emptiness”, though this must not be confused to also mean ”nothingness” (or ”zeroness”, whatever one choose to mean by that). This concept illustrates the fact that, because of the impermant nature of everything, nothing possesses enduring identity. This is tied to anatta, which refers to the notion of ”non-self” or ”absence of seperate self”, or the fact that there is nothing such as an eternal and immortal soul. Shunyata illustrates the illusion of percieving something as a separate entity, of something that is ”out there”. This can be interpreted as the concept of Oneness, though I’ll be careful to jump to conclusions.
I really don’t think Buddhism advocates a no-happiness/no-pain scheme. As I’ve said, Buddhism advocates the middle way. It doesn’t condemn happiness, but sometimes pain is something you have to endure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by francstoic If Buddhism advocates getting rid of attachment to the world, what is it trying to communicate when it says that by attaining nirvana one gets freed from all suffering. I mean, if you were really detached, you wouldn't even bother if the suffering was there or not. |
In moments of happiness, the suffering of the world is not a part of your awareness. But that’s excactly what it is: moments. Everything is impermanent. As long as you live in this reality, suffering will be a part of your reality. By obtaining Nirvana, you free yourself from the cyclic time-space reality that we exist in. And it is within this eternal reality that pain exists.
DISCLAIMER 1: I feel confident in what I’ve been presenting, but I stand open to be corrected. And I acknowledge that I don’t have much knowledge on this complex/difficult to understand school of thought.
DISCLAIMER 2: This is not an argument against your beliefs, because I don’t hold any Buddhist beliefs myself. I am simply trying (though I could be failing) to explain the need for detachment in Buddhism, one of the biggest (and thereby influential) eastern religions.