Sadness or... Nihilism?
I live in the saddest country of the Eropean Union and ones of the world. Only 38 % of spaniards feel happy with their lives (source: https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-happiness-study-2020).
To be honest with you, I don't feel happy either. But I am not here to bother you with my personal problems.
Nevertheless, it its interesting that one of the fact we are agree about of making us sadness is "feeling that my life has non meaning. Actually, 45 % of Spaniards wish this in their lives: Not being meaningless.
But if you think more deeply, it one of the most interesting debates inside philosophy. Do our lives have meaning? What kind of meaning?
I guess having a meaningful life depends a lot of social circumstances. If you live in a nation with a weak economy (as mine) and really really low quality education in the pursue of happiness (as mine) drive you be a sad person because you see everything around you so screwed. Note that the developed are the happiest (US 70 %. Canada 78 %. Australia 77 % etc... Source https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-happiness-study-2020)
Apart from the scientific explanation of the research. I open a debate why some citizens of some countries feel they have a meaning in their lives and why others not. I think is about education system. Here nobody teaches us the pursuit of happiness or at least something close to. Our educational system somehow is flawed because it is very influenced by religion and the fear of the unknow or what future holds instead of secularism one.
Thoughts? I am interested in your opinions considering we live in different countries.
[/img]
To be honest with you, I don't feel happy either. But I am not here to bother you with my personal problems.
Nevertheless, it its interesting that one of the fact we are agree about of making us sadness is "feeling that my life has non meaning. Actually, 45 % of Spaniards wish this in their lives: Not being meaningless.
But if you think more deeply, it one of the most interesting debates inside philosophy. Do our lives have meaning? What kind of meaning?
I guess having a meaningful life depends a lot of social circumstances. If you live in a nation with a weak economy (as mine) and really really low quality education in the pursue of happiness (as mine) drive you be a sad person because you see everything around you so screwed. Note that the developed are the happiest (US 70 %. Canada 78 %. Australia 77 % etc... Source https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-happiness-study-2020)
Apart from the scientific explanation of the research. I open a debate why some citizens of some countries feel they have a meaning in their lives and why others not. I think is about education system. Here nobody teaches us the pursuit of happiness or at least something close to. Our educational system somehow is flawed because it is very influenced by religion and the fear of the unknow or what future holds instead of secularism one.
Thoughts? I am interested in your opinions considering we live in different countries.
[/img]
Comments (129)
Nihilism is exactly the problem. And it's definitely not an easy problem to solve, I'm not making light of it. There either is meaning/purpose etc. or there is not, and if there is, it's certainly not easy to find. Having said that, we also shouldn't just give up and say "no there isn't any meaning" because the question is too hard.
The Premodern philosophers, by which I mean, primarily the Chinese, Indian, Greco-Roman and medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim, didn't agree on what precisely that meaning was that undergirded the world. But they agreed that there must in fact be such a thing.
I would say the same. The way to figure out, determine or discover what that meaning is is challenging, perhaps impossible, but we should live our lives as if it existed and try earnestly to find it instead of giving up and throwing in the towel.
Sort of an Absurdist or Existentialist approach to it, but not really since I reject existence precedes essence.
Yes. You nailed it. There is not a true meaning in our lives. It is something we created. The abstract complex of meaningful life depends on the person itself.
But I don't really know if it's worthy find a solution or a result of our meaningless life instead of giving up. This is why nihilism appears. For me, it is hard to find a meaning in life, even more harder being happy. I am not saying here it is impossible. But somehow it looks like we are forced to discover it.
Also as you said previously. This society is so guilty because they try to send us a fake meaning of life that only a few people can get. This is the main reason why probably there are a lot of sad persons depending the country. They (I refer oligarchs) established a weird way of living: income, being attractive to others and family.
Excuse me but... If I don't live this establishment am I worst? It is impossible to discover because "meaningful" life is abstract and has to be encouraged by educational system.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is true meaning in life. It's just hard to pin down. It's not all made up from our tail end.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes. As Sartre said, we're condemned to be free. We don't have any choice but to at least try to discover it.
Quoting javi2541997
I usually call them the Oligarchs too, the Technocrats, the elites, the bankers, there's a lot of words you can use. But the people who have run the society for the last few hundred years.
Quoting javi2541997
No, I don't think so. I think realizing that the world that has been established "for you" is a fraud, is a scam, an illusion. That's the first step.
Quoting Dharmi
Sorry. I am so stupid to understand you. My fault
:death: :flower:
I find these numbers very hard to believe. China at 93%? And my country in the 70ties while Spain only at 38. I've been to Spain multiple times, and didn't have the impression that people were fundamentally more unhappy. Spain has been through a rough patch lately to be sure, with lots of unemployment and lack of perspective in general, but these numbers seem exaggerated.
That said, I'll throw two completely different ideas at this question of meaning/happiness :
1. Expectations matter. Perception of ones happiness will invariably be relative to ones expectations about happiness. If you have high expectations, chances are you will report being less happy than someone with low expectations in the same circumstances. This might some of what's going on with Spain, historically coming from a more rich/prominent position than it has now.
2. I think there is a problem of meaning, certainly in the west. I think meaning for most people is tied to having a perspective of playing some role in the larger societies they are part of. Historically religion played a huge part in providing that, even if it was just a story people told. With secularization in the west people have lost that... and not a whole lot has come in it's place. What is the role now for the average person? Working some unfulfilling BS job to be a consumer and keep the economy going so the rich can get richer? That is if you can get a job anyway. Maybe the question of meaning is hitting Spain especially hard now because it is traditional more Catholic than the rest of Europe and late to the secular party? And so it hasn't had the time to deal with this question of meaning for a secular point of view?
Yes, but that religion is "just a story" is a very Modernist type of thing claim. Premodern religion, pagan religions, were not stories. They were the way things are. The metaphysical underpinning of ultimate reality itself. Ancient people had methods of knowing this Ultimate, through what Plotinus termed theurgy, but what the Vedic tradition refers to as yoga. It's not just a story, if anything, Modernity is "just a story"
Modernity has absolutely nothing to do with Greco-Roman civilization, it's a deviation and perversion of Dark Age Christendom which stole, plagiarized and appropriated the writings of the ancients like Plato and Aristotle to create this catastrophe of a so-called civilization which is destroying the whole planet as we speak. Modernity is a story, not Premodernity.
Nobody in the USA (a capitalist society) does either.
Meaning is used by those in a position of power or influence to control the masses. If a society taught its citizens about meaning, what it is and how to find it for themselves, it wouldn’t be as easy to corral them like sheep to the slaughter.
I agree that the study seems seriously flawed. I am not sure you could find any study where 93% of a population is [fill in the blank], and China seems unlikely as a location to find mass happiness.
If Jordan Peterson leaves a legacy, I believe he will be known for advocating that the key to finding meaning in one's life is through the taking of personal and then social responsibility. It is through this mechanism that one can navigate their path using meaning as a compass.
It is only our intellect that demands a purpose to our lives as a filler when we decide that sitting around and twiddling our thumbs is more productive than actually doing something.
Sure, as someone born in the modern age, I think it save to say I view things from a modernist perspective... I'm a product of the times, I'm not sure how that could be otherwise.
And I agree Christianity is to be blamed for everything.
I understand that, I'm just disputing your claim that religion is a story. It's not a story. The gods are real, God is real. From my perspective, obviously, you have your Modernist perspective.
Jordan Peterson is a living joke. He is a anti-Postmodernist Postmodernist. He has no credibility at all. He literally just mystifies people with words that mean nothing.
Quoting synthesis
Yes. That's what makes human life different than animal life. Animals can have sex, eat, sleep and clean themselves. So can we. The difference is we have an intellect, though many do not utilize it.
I think millions of people might disagree with your assessment. And you might think differently in time.
Quoting Dharmi
I rather think that we use it way too much. You don't see animals doing stupid shit all the time.
How convenient.
Your disagreement about the existence of Gods and God is noted.
I was only semi-serious... But Christianity has played an important role in how we got where we are now.
No, I don't think I ever will. I've read his books, I've watched every lecture he's ever done. He's just Slavoj Zizek's alterego. He yaps about things, but never actually says anything coherent.
Animals are what humans become when they don't use their reasoning faculty. However, they, unlike Modern/Postmodern people, follow natural law. That's why animals don't do stupid things, they follow natural law. Dharma. Modern humans reject natural law.
:up:
Quoting Dharmi
"God" is just a psychosocial (i.e. sheep-corraling) placebo-fetish, or drug-dependency of choice. Like a drunk's "happiness", which is drink. Why not life liberty and the prefrontal lobotomy?
That's just your prejudice and bias. Death is the ultimate elephant in the room for people who yak on about their liberty and life. You cant escape God's natural law, no matter how much you yak about your alleged liberty and what not.
Just because meaning is utilized in this way doesn't mean there is no meaning. In the same way that just because everybody claims to have the truth, and the ruling class tries to keep the truth hidden from the masses via propaganda systems and ideology as best as they can, doesn't mean there is no truth.
[i]there
is
no godot
but[/i]
Death,
and
Sleep[i]
is
her prophet[/i]
:death: :flower:
That's not totally false. God is death. But death is not God. God is the creator of death. Also, creator of life. He is the Lord of all, and he is all, yet infinitely beyond all: creator, preserver and destroyer.
"I am death, the destroyer of the worlds." (Bhagavad Gita 11:32)
Also, death is not akin to sleep. Death is nonexistence. So, it's not experienced. Sleep is experienced.
I didn’t suggest there is no meaning. In fact, I believe that we are all utterly saturated in meaning.
That's just your prejudice and bias.
Inherent meaning. Not contrived. Not made up. Not artificial.
What particularly? That death will come? I don't think so. That's a fact.
What do mean by inherent meaning?
Inherent in the nature of the universe, in the Cosmos. In the Omniverse. It's not something humans made up.
What is called the Dao in Chinese philosophy, Dharma in Indian philosophy, Logos and other names in Greek philosophy. It's called natural law in English.
Yes it is true this is hard to believe this is why I didn’t want mention Asian countries because tend to overrate everything.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Truste me they are not. You have a perspective of us because you visited my country multiple times but remember just for tourism. It is important to emphasise that touristic countries tend to make an unrealistic mask just to attract a lot of people (Spain does it) I don’t know which territories you visited but I guess the common ones as Andalucía or another Mediterranean beach. Well yes they are happy more they have to because we are in a mess. I don’t even understand my own compatriots but it seems very legit the 38 %.
I was buying some stuff in a market and a random dude asked us: “do you have some coins?” And then some woman replied “I wish I could give you some coins but I earn 400 € at month”
This made me feel sad my own country man...
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Well it is not as Catholic as looks like. XIX Spain was so secular. But Franco wining the civil war put another history in the books...
Yes because somehow this motivates us. Nevertheless it looks like some citizens of some countries have a solid path in the meaningful life not like others (we do not count China because yes it is flawed).
Well, I think that's false. I think we can know this inherent meaning, Dao, Logos, Dharma and I think we can live our lives in accord with it. If we do not, we end up in a lunatic jungle, zoo, circus society like this one. If we do, then we have security, stability and a golden age.
Moreover, everyone in history until Modernity believed there was this meaning and we can know what it is. All of the ancients. So I don't accept your Modernist/Postmodernist assumptions that it cannot be known and/or that it doesn't exist.
If it wasn't Christianity, it would have been something else.
In the end, you can only control your own actions.
No, it wouldn't have. The Adharmic nature of Abrahamism is particular to Abrahamism and Abrahamism alone.
The rest of civilization would've continued to follow Dharma.
So, you believe everything is here merely on an accident? There's no order that keeps things in check, and puts them into the manner and way that they are?
I think that's absolute nonsense. And it's easy to show. If everything were an accident, we ought to see life spontaneously coming into existence all of the time at random. But we've never seen that. Life began only once, and despite the enormous efforts, intelligence, funding, time and resources behind attempts to create life, they cannot even create a single simple cell in a laboratory. Let alone a multicellular complex organism like a bee, or a tree, or a human, or a bird.
Not even one. They have to mimick and copy life and inject it into "machines" in order to "make life."
That's an absolute joke. If you're serious that there's no order, design, function, purpose underlying the fabric of the Cosmos, you have to be seriously deluded or seriously that stupid.
That's not an insult, that's how I genuinely feel.
I assume you are a Buddhist? And I wouldn't be so hard on the animals. :)
Absolutely. Everyone is wrong. It used to be that all civilizations followed Dharma, Dao, Logos, natural law. Now nobody does.
Yes, they're absolutely wrong to reject it.
No, I am a follower of Sanatana Dharma, or Hinduism. I merely have the Buddhist avatar because it looks nice. Buddha himself was not a Buddh-ist, he was a Sanatani.
I think if you would do an accurate study, you might find that people are people are people. Some might be happier if their society is gaining, and others unhappier if they are losing, but how different can we be?
It is up to the individual to strike out from the herd if s/he wishes to transcend the mediocrity of it all.
I can explain this discrepancy, the reason is simple, nihilism is created through ideology. Modernism is an ideology. Modernism was created via Christianity, through medieval Scholastic nominalism. That view is false.
The reason people are nihilistic is because ideology that are false ideologies are assumed and believed by everyone. But they're false ideologies.
I recommend the book "Theological Origins of Modernity" to explain this discrepancy.
Premodern people had no problem with "nihilism" because they all understood that there is a Dao, Logos, Dharma, natural law to the universe. As long as you live your life in accord with that, then there's no nihilism.
The nominalist philosophy, that is the basis of nihilism and Modernism and Postmodernism. Is a view that directly contradicts that view. That's where the problem lies. That's where it comes from.
Try to make your practice inclusive as opposed to exclusive.
We are all one (after all).
My practice is inclusive. This is a philosophy forum, I'm simply debating. If you accept my view, fine, if you don't fine. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to get people to think.
We are all one, in a sense. But in another sense, we are not. If you reject God, that does have consequences, not eternal torture, but temporary consequences. Eventually, yes, all will be reunited with Godhead. But I'd rather some people, who desire it, be reunited immediately rather than millions of years of rebirths as lower life forms.
Don't worry so much about what people think as they are on their own journey and they must work out their own karma. You will never be able to change anybody's mind.
And it's not a matter of accepting your views. What do your views mean in my life? I must accept my own views 100%, as must everybody else.
I'm just here trying to find those very few souls, as God says, who are beloved by him. I'm not interested in most people. I know most people aren't interested in philosophy, God or anything important in general, and those who are, usually believe nonsense. So I'm very well aware of the issue.
Karma is irrelevant when one remembers God. If one remembers God, all Karma is totally irrelevant.
"And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt." (Bhagavad Gita 8:5)
Anyway, like I said, I'm not trying to get most people, or maybe even anyone, to accept my views. If, however, I find the one in a million of souls who are truly searching for God and freedom from this prison of materiality, then I'm here to guide those people.
This is, of course, true. As long as we're bound to the prison of materiality, the three modes of material nature, then this will always be the case.
Struggle, domination, survival, greed, lust, power. Whatever else. Humans are not exempt from that, no matter what age or time period it is.
I'm not saying Premodern peoples were perfect, if that's what you're insinuating. It ebbs and flows. Especially since the Age of Kali we're in.
Yes it was mostly touristic regions I guess, the Catalonia region multiple times and the Sevilla region. So I take your word for it. But then I don't really believe the numbers are that high in my country, people generally don't seem all that happy. Maybe material wealth (in which we do ok I guess) does paper over a lot of perceived unhappiness, certainly in reporting considering wealth is seen as a measure of 'succes' a lot of time...
But yeah the bad situation Spain, and the other southern European countries, are in at the moment, is really a shame. The Euro was a very bad deal for the south.
The Hindu atman apparently contradicts with the Buddhist concept of emptiness. I imagine that there are all sorts of ways to talk around the issue, but I don’t see a way to resolve it, and if there’s no resolution then at least one story must be false.
I understand what you are doing and applaud your commitment but you might want to consider applying your principles through your speech and actions in a way which is meaningful to others. IOW, the only people who care about what you (or any of us) think are those who have come specifically for guidance (and those folks are few and far between).
Again, I admire your passion and wish you the best of luck on your path!
I don't think this is true, Christianity was historically very peculiar in many ways.
Quoting synthesis
This seem like a part of the myth of individualism, which ironically had its roots in Christianity.
We don’t have any other solution. It is bad but it could be worse...
Now you maybe don't have any other solution, right. But at the moment of conception of the Euro, the southern countries never should have joined, because it removed the possibility of running their own monetary policy. Because of the Euro you had to follow a monetary policy that would never work for you, because you had another economy. It was an accident waiting to happen... and yeah hindsight doesn't really solve anything, but I think I wouldn't have been as bad as it is now.
That's right.
There either is a Self or there is no-Self.
But the Buddha himself didn't teach non-Self. It's a Buddh-ist doctrine. The Buddha's teachings, by themselves, are totally Hindu.
I'm doing whatever means I can. This is also for my own growth, I am doing Socratic dialogue. But I have a Youtube channel coming up, and I'm also working on translation to spread Dharmic principles. But anyway, that's that, this is this.
Yes. It is a monetary policy that obviously doesn’t work for the Mediterranean countries but somehow this is a big win for Germany. They wanted something like this. Most of the countries divided and a flawed except them or some nordic nordic countries. That’s all.
But... they are not only guilty in this problem. My governors only put investment in tourism and that’s a big fail
The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman.
Yes agreed.
No it isn't. There's a false ego and a true ego. Within the material world, all is transcient. But in the world of Forms, the spectral world, Vaikuntha, there is eternality, no transcience. No change. Maybe the perception, but not actual.
Being and becoming.
"Of the transient there is no endurance, and of the eternal there is no cessation. This has verily been observed by the seers of the truth, after studying the nature of both." (Bhagavad Gita 2:16)
You mis-understand. If something bothers you, it's 99.99% not the "something" that bothers you but something inside of you. If not Christianity, then something else. The thinking world is chock-full of things that bothers us.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It's not myth. Attempting to worry about what everybody else is doing is foolhardy. Change begins within, then if others like what they see, they may look more closely.
Open your mouth and you have already lost it.
Huang Po d. 850AD
I actually had a conversation with someone who was "nihilistic" and they argued the exact opposite of this, and how believing we were made by an intelligent designer and not out of what they called blind evolution is delusional and ridiculous.
Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a [i]changeless realm[/I], now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:
Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral. Without change, well, nothing would change and everything would be static and dead. The rule of transiency may only be relevant to sentient beings, however, if that's what you're getting at. In any case, you haven't shown how the Buddha's rule of transiency is comparable with Hinduism.
I don't understand why you don't simply claim that the Buddha was wrong.
You can act contrary to what you believe, that happens. Assuming I'm understanding what you're saying.
No, it doesn't. Parmenides went over this a long time ago.
The Buddha wasn't wrong, certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong, Buddh-ism is wrong, but the Buddha was not wrong. His teaching is correct.
Quoting praxis
Because the world of sense perception is transient, there is a false ego (ahamkara) that is transient but there is a true self (Atman) that underlies all transient phenomenon, including the false ego. That Atman is divine. Tat Tvam Asi (Thou Art That) Brahman=Atman. But it is not the Supreme Lord (Parabrahman/Parataman), we are merely a divine spark within a larger current of divinity. Which is the Infinite, the All-Pervading.
So our world of sense perception is indeed transient, empty. But the real world is eternal, unchanging.
Being and Becoming.
Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient."
Quoting Dharmi
And all sentient beings have sense perception, right?
Quoting Dharmi
What exactly? The rule of transiency?
In Parmenides' system, change is merely illusory. In the spectral world, that's how change operates. The spectral world is non-different from God, and God does not change, he's unchanging, boundless, infinite.
Quoting praxis
All beings which reside in maya have sense perception. Beyond which, there's only pure consciousness, or Purusha.
Don't know why you think Christianity bothers me, or what this has to do with what I said. I have no particular axe to grind with Christianity, my original comment was meant quite light-heartedly. And then I was just saying Christianity played an important role historically. Me being bothered about it or not, doesn't change anything about that.
Quoting synthesis
"Within" is not causally disconnected from the rest of the world...
Think about the ramifications of that for a second, instead of trying to read things into my comments that aren't there.
Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being.
Quoting Dharmi
I know next to nothing about Hinduism. Sentient beings reincarnate after Purusha, and are still considered sentient beings?
No, change is the essential feature of Buddhism.
Quoting praxis
In our system too, the gods (except for the Supreme God, Vishnu) are material beings who are under material nature.
Quoting praxis
There are two main realms:
The spectral realm, the world of Being.
The material realm, the world of Becoming.
Within the material realm, there are billions of planets, universes, dimensions, and so on and so forth. In the realm of Being, there is no change, change is merely an illusion. Now, that's not to say it doesn't "appear" to change, it does, but it doesn't actually. In this realm, there is only Vaikuntha, and the various lokas (locations, locus points) within Vaikuntha: the spectral realm.
In the realm of Becoming, change is all that truly exists. One thing going from one state of being to the next until it dies. Fizzles out.
When one has reached Adi-Purusha, that is to say, Vishnu, then one has reached eternity. There is no change that occurs. It only occurs in an illusory state, like in a dream. But everything is eternal, no true change happens. No death, no rebirth. No Karma or reincarnation.
Karma and reincarnation are natural laws, only existing in the material world.
Don't know what you're trying to say but I think it would be better to say that emptiness is the essential feature of Buddhism.
Quoting Dharmi
Significantly, you didn't answer my question about sentient beings in Adi-Purusha.
Yeah, that's right. Because it's only one process of change to the next, there's no enduring self. Just the fleeting aggregates that arise from dependent origination.
Are we sentient? Yes I would say so. God is sentient, God is not a blob floating around. That's my initial impression.
In Buddhism a sentient being is as you say, just the fleeting aggregates that arise from dependent origination.
Quoting Dharmi
If mistakes like this happen in Buddhism then it's reasonable to assume that such mistakes happen in other religions. I guess we'll just have to have faith in our religious authorities. :starstruck:
That's certainly not what we say. Religious authorities, especially in Hinduism, are typically frauds and liars. We go by the Vedic method of knowing God, yogic meditation.
:lol: Yogic meditation told you that certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong? What exactly?
No, even secular scholarship will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. I don't need yoga to figure that out.
Yes and no (like pretty much everything). Although "within" is not disconnected from the rest of the world intellectually, it is in other ways, and it is the development of these spheres that allow individualism to flourish.
Almost all the good that has happened in the world has been created by individuals through compassion, whereas almost all the bad had been foisted on the world is by groups using their leverage to amass power in order to control (everybody else).
And as a far as reading into somebody else's comments, such are the limitations of communicating in this elemental manner (or any manner, really). Without being able to see and hear the one who you are communicating with, what we accept as understanding is threadbare indeed.
Okay, name a secular scholar that claims this and I'll look it up for myself since you are apparently incapable of supporting your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism#Teachings_of_earliest_Buddhism
I don't think any honest person who is familiar with Buddhism would deny that, if there is, then I can discuss it then.
This stood out: [i]"there is no word that can be traced with unquestionable authority to Gotama Sakyamuni as a historical personage, although there must be some sayings or phrases derived from him."[/I] Can't be sure about anything he supposedly said but can be absolutely sure that certain things were attributed to the Buddha falsely. Hmm... :chin:
Still don't get why you don't just claim that the Buddha was mistaken. Is the Bible True?
"Okay, name a secular scholar that claims this and I'll look it up for myself since you are apparently incapable of supporting your claims.' -- praxis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism#Teachings_of_
--Dharmi
Gotta love the "I refute you by challenging you to teach me something.". It works! For teaching you something. :lol:
Impermanence is an illusion. :nerd:
Quoting frank
I challenged him to name a secular scholar that will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. He, of course, failed to do this.
He admits that the Buddha taught impermanence (nothing to do with emptiness?) though.
I frequently use wikipedia to find scholars.
It's
in
the
foot
notes.
Where?
I cited the article, the article has scholars in it.
Quoting praxis
Of course it's not an illusion.
Quoting praxis
Right, Hinduism teaches impermanence too. Emptyness is a later formulation, is it based on impermanence? Of course. But it's a later formulation.
[quote=Bhagavad Gita 2:14]O son of Kunt?, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.[/quote]
At
the
bottom.
Are you sure you aren't talking about Zen?
Atman is impermanent, so Buddha was right about anatman. :grin:
Zen vs the original.
Atman is permanent. In the Ananda Sutta, he denies he teaches anatman. Anatman is a later Buddh-ist teaching. Ahamkara, false ego, is impermanent.
[quote=Ananda Sutta]Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"
"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"[/quote]
Scholars disagree, what else is new?
It was the Iron Age, so yea, probably.
The moral of the story is that secular scholars lack faith or, in other words, don't rely on religious authorities.
??? If that's how you're interpreting it, he also denies teaching atman.
Yes. Because Buddha was an Apophatic thinker. Via Negativa.
Sure. Good for them. I guess.
It's obviously a teaching about avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism.
Try again.
If you see your original face, slap it for me.
That's a famous zen koan.
No, you're 100% right. Buddha's teaching was to focus on the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, he was not willing to talk about atman or anatman because that would muddy the waters. That's correct.
Oh good.
But Hindu's talk about atman. Atman is all the rage in Hinduism.
True, but that's not the only thing our philosophy teaches. Four Noble Truths, the yoga system, which the Buddha effectively revived, the impermanence of the material world, suffering arising from clinging to sense perception, these are all Hindu ideas.
Weird. Buddhism teaches that suffering arises from ignorance of our true nature, which is emptiness, and that everything (including formless realms) are empty.
Yes, Buddh-ism says that. Buddha only said it's because those things are impermanent, never said what the nature of those things was. He refused to, as I just posted above.
He apparently wants to keep with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self. Hmm... why would he want to do that???
"Empty" in Buddhism is always of something, like the emptiness of a pot. It's a reference to illusion.
Is that what you mean by emptiness?
Let me know if you need a secular scholar.
Because it's true, they are not-self. There's the false self (ahamkara) and the true self (atman). It is true that the aggregates of sense perception are not-self. That's a different thing than saying there's no-self.
This book Hindus agree with 3 of 4 of those concepts.
Emptiness is the only one we disagree with.
Yeah, whatever, there’s no such animal (eternal atman) in Buddhism, only emptiness. Does the passage that you quote suggest that the Blessed One wants to be in good keeping with the teaching of atman?
“No, lord”
a) noticeably improving conditions (economic particularly, but also social and political aspects). Getting a good job almost always makes unemployed people much happier. Seeing that others are getting reasonably good jobs when the seek them, gives both the job seekers and observers a boost in confidence. The reverse is true; rising unemployment makes job holders less confident.
b) on-going good and stable conditions seems to make people happy. People don't usually complain that the weather every day has been just perfect -- and tediously boring. Things like a major hunk of your country deciding to secede (Catalan, perhaps?) might contribute to collective unhappiness -- just because it marks a sharp increase of instability.
c) seeing a route to a better future would tend to make people happier. Declining population (people reproducing below replacement levels) might make people unhappier. People who live in cities where there are numerous empty houses might be less happy, and so might individuals remaining in these cities.
d) squalid, impoverished, ugly environments (your basic shit hole) tend to make people less happy, individually and collectively. On the other hand, clean, prosperous, attractive environments tend to make people happier (assuming people prefer prosperity over poverty, clean over squalid, attractive over ugly).
76% of people in Britain claim to be rather happy or merely happy. If that figure is truly reflective of the UK's level of happiness, then it's probably the case that they just aren't paying attention. Have they not noticed the negative consequences of Brexit? Can a nation really be happy with a PM like Boris (or Donald)? The answer is obviously NO -- happiness under Donald Trump was a sick joke; a delusion; a scam; a filthy trick. The only thing that would be worse than Trump's presidency would be Trump's presidency again. Perish the thought!
I know, Buddhism is an incomplete system.
It is a quote from the Buddha that you presented yourself.
The illusion is permanence. The truth, allegedly, is emptiness.
Quoting frank
I would ask for no other kind, and it is kind of you to offer.
Emptiness of what?
Atman
So I guess empty of anger and fear. Too bad. I was thinking we might have a holy war between Hindus and Buddhists over whether there's any emptiness.
I was going to volunteer as a gorilla in case that kind of warfare was needed.
A few years ago I would tell you "I wish they do not being independent from us" but how it looks like now... I want them completely apart. Spain already has a lot of problems, we do not have time for selfish people and its own interest. The State is wasting so much resources and time with them. Probably the best solution is let them go...
I do not know haw bad can be. It is true leaving from the EU (at least they can do it...) it wasn't the best idea. Nevertheless we are having different circumstances here. Probably UK will start losing some money due to the agreements with EU but I guess in the long-term would be a totally different scenario. Also they have the British pound which is a very powerful currency.
Despite all tbe economic stuff... Isn't it very sad that a country which fought for freedom back in WWII let the European Union? I guess yes. It is not only guilty the UK. We have to look at Eurpean Bank and German monopoly.
Good of you to volunteer in place of a gorilla, they being a peaceable and endangered species.
On the other hand, you might want to volunteer as a guerilla. Perhaps there will be a battalion of gorilla costumed guerillas.
Archeologists say "the truth is in the garbage." They are not being cynical. People's garbage testifies to their real activities, contrary to what they say on surveys. This would be true for Hindus and Buddhists too. As for emptiness in garbage cans, we suspect they are using the neighbor's.
There's more to gorilla warfare than just sitting around eating peaches. There's the baring of the fangs and beating of the chest. It's intense.
A meaningful story can woven out of anything, even mere garbage. Truth isn’t necessary and rather beside the point.