I see what you mean now.
Printable View
I see what you mean now.
I would agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
IMO, happiness comes when your dreams and hopes for something better is crushed. When you are content with what you have, instead of longing for what you don't have.
i dont think that it neccesarily only comes when your dreams and hopes are crushed, unhappiness can also come from that. but i do agree with the latter part of your post. it is acceptence and content.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
People aren't constantly happy--we evolved that way. Someone who is happy for a while but then becomes discontent and works at becoming happy again is more successful evolutionarily.
Buying new things does make us happy--for a short while. Nothing wrong with it as long as you can afford it.
People are very social, they need strong personal relationships in ordor to be happy. Some people are also genetically prone to depresion and not good at dealing with it. I don't believe the pursuit of happiness is artificial, it seems like a natural instinct to me.Quote:
I mean look at us, we have every reason to be happy, most of us in the west anyway, we are rich, we have good infrastructure, we have all kinds of luxuries, we have education, unlimited access to knowledge and information, and yet we have emo's. Yet we have lots of depressions and suicides. We have people who have no reason to be unhappy other than that there is too much choice to be happy.
there is nothing wrong with buying to bcome happy but there is with buying to justify your existance. we buy in order to be socially accepted.
have to catch my transfer more later
The Pursuit of Happiness, as an inalienable right, right up there with Life and Liberty in the American system, also implies a Right to Privacy, and the Primacy of the Individual citizen, over the collective.
In other words, it dictates that the individual citizen, using whatever method he chooses, decides for himself what will most likely make him happy (there's the Privacy bit: HE decides, not The State or his neighbors/family), and is allowed the freedom to use whatever means he deems fit to achieve that happy goal - restricted only in that he cannot deny the Life, Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness of another citizen.
I've read that early drafts of the US Declaration of Independence used the words: Life, Liberty, and Property, when talking about inalienable rights. I'm glad they changed that to "Pursuit of Happiness", it allowing more flexibility to the individual citizen.
that is true. in theory we are free (wether we subject to a covenant or not, eg roussaux) but we are social people and ranked amongst nr1 fear is the fear to be alone, the fear of not being accepted in a group, aka not being socially accepted. and that fear overrules any desire to be free in every but the most individual and stongest human beings. so even though by law we are free, by peerpressure we are not. and it is not tyranny, because we are all equally subjected in it.
im not glad they changed it to pursuit of happiness, there exactly is the demand of the government (who represents the people, thus actually it is the people demanding it from themselves and others) that you pursue your happiness, at all costs exept of another person. I say to hell with that and just enjoy the moment.
still stuck on the airport... almost home... home sweet home!
wwoooooot post 8000
Happiness from Buddhist point of view
Happiness is not the same as material gratification. "Unhappiness" is not the lack of possessing material objects. The Stranger says that happiness is a state of mind, and I do not disagree with him. However, does the fact that it's state of mind make it any less real? True happiness, in my opinion is smiling because you see a flower blooming, a happy mother with a child or simply enjoying the wind rustling through the leaves. Happiness is never materialistic and comes forth from compassion.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama explained that Buddhism is not natural, it's swimming against the stream. Keeping this in mind, distancing oneself from what in Buddhism are called "Earthly attachments" is vital.
In this respect, when it comes to happiness, well yeah, it is something that you can't buy.
I never really understood the distinction between material things and natural things. Why should only man-made material things be considered an earthly attachment? For example, what is the difference in being happy because you got a big new TV, or being happy because there's a new flower in your garden? At the end of the day, it's just your mind taking pleasure in a wordly object. And it's just as easy to become decadent with 'natural' things as 'material' things, for example I would consider having a fancy garden to be decadent. And depending on such things to be happy just leads to misery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
That actually makes sense rhy. Perhaps the only place in which we hold things that are truly immaterial is our mind. It is our thoughts and memories that we have 20 years later. By then we will most likely have bought a new car or tv.
No that is true joy. Joy is fleeting. It's a moment. You enJOY the moment. and then its over. some joys take longer, others are quick and gone. joy is not to be confused with happiness. an unhappy people can enjoy, can have joys. and a happy person can have his sad moments. but theyre still respectively unhappy and happy. you are only happy when you accept that the joys in your life and all the sad moments are all that there is and that there will be nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Happiness requires you to denounce change. but most people will become fed up with their lives if nothing changes. theyll feel as if they dont grow. as if nothing new happens. they need change to stay happy. but happiness means that you dont want anything to change, that you are happy with what you have and dont want anything more. there lies the problem.
so instead of trying to be happy and eventually get caught up in the pincerproblem that haunts the idea of happiness, i say enjoy the moment and just live. just exist.
No, psychologically we require variance. If we could just live in the moment we could sit in a chair and listen to a song we like over and over again all day and be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
A good point. However, there are some things that you may have misunderstood. Happiness does not come forth from dependence; true happiness does not, in Buddhism. There is a difference, as the concept of "ownership" is not really relevant when it comes to the natural world in Buddhism.Quote:
I never really understood the distinction between material things and natural things. Why should only man-made material things be considered an earthly attachment? For example, what is the difference in being happy because you got a big new TV, or being happy because there's a new flower in your garden? At the end of the day, it's just your mind taking pleasure in a wordly object. And it's just as easy to become decadent with 'natural' things as 'material' things, for example I would consider having a fancy garden to be decadent. And depending on such things to be happy just leads to misery.
That's about the number one thing that we try not to be, being depedent on material objects. As far as I'm concerned, a Buddhist would rather say he grows plants in his garden instead of "I own plants".Quote:
And it's just as easy to become decadent with 'natural' things as 'material' things, for example I would consider having a fancy garden to be decadent. And depending on such things to be happy just leads to misery.
Tell me, who owns nature? Buddhism is positivism (I might have just made word that up), happiness coming forth from what is, acceptance that we can never "own" this and letting it be as it is.
Do not take this to be the truth, or even a truth. If you are happy as you are, you can simply disregard that and continue with your life.
I find buddhism to be very interesting--however I find it to be a bit off the mark. Though better than many theories of happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert..._we_happy.html
A 20 minute talk, quite interesting I find. Similar to buddhism but a bit better imo (or maybe my understanding of buddhism is a bit off--though I remember finding it suspiciously adaptable when I read about it). The buddhist idea is that happiness comes from not striving for it. The guy in the video here shows pretty conclusively that people greatly overestimate the effect something will have on their happiness, and strive to hard to achieve it. So people should strive, but not too hard.
If I have to take it at face value I would describe budhism (or every religion really) as spiritual capitalism. Different bank, same thing.
So bitter, for what reason?
Nobody is forcing you to change your opinion though.
I try to keep the use of the words "better" and "worse" when it comes to religion as minimal as possible. I think all religions have aspects that affect people, and some are suited better for some people than others. Or no religion at all. As long as you're happy and don't stab random people.Quote:
A 20 minute talk, quite interesting I find. Similar to buddhism but a bit better imo (or maybe my understanding of buddhism is a bit off--though I remember finding it suspiciously adaptable when I read about it). The buddhist idea is that happiness comes from not striving for it.
The bushist monks always stole my lunchbox, and there is nothing I could do about it they know kung-fu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
buddhism isnt really a religion... it is a way of life. but afa religion is concerned (religions shouldnt be confused with belief) you are right. different bank and dictator same reason.
Uh........................................................................Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
buddhism is a religion. but i understand what you are saying. compared to some other religions out there it is much more of a life path.
You are both correct, in a way.
Buddhism does not have a God who judges people, in which it differs from most religions. There are deities, but they do not judge us. To become a Buddhist, there are three vows which need to be taken;
I take refuge in the Buddha
I take refuge in the Dharma (Buddhist "rules")
I take refuge in the Sangha (Buddhist community)
In this it greatly differs from both the Christian idea that Jesus was God's son, and the Muslim idea that Mohammed was God's final prophet, since there is no God to us. Maybe there is, but we don't really mind. That's not what Buddhism is about. The way I explained it to my (Islamic) family was that Islam (and Christianity) are religions of preparation on the afterlife. Buddhism is a religion which focuses almost solely on life. There is a Heaven, but the only way to get in there is by becoming a Boddhisattva or Buddha. If not, you reincarnate.
There is "belief", to an extent, in Buddhism, but it's mostly about improving our lives.
I love the concept of reincarnations. The whole you get another chance concept as compared to Christianity's belief that you get one chance so don't **** it up
Actually, I'd say it's the three religions with the judging god who differs from all the other religions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Yet these three religions together easily make 57 percent of the entire world population.Quote:
Actually, I'd say it's the three religions with the judging god who differs from all the other religions...
Just gimme a couple of years ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I don't think religions like christianity, judaism, islam will ever really "die out". They are just too firmly entrenched in our culture. In some ways they add structure to our lives. Buddhism even with such a different philosophy does much the same thing. In my mind religion is first and foremost a way of life. Being a "good" christian or Buddhist just means following a set of rules. The only really major differences between religions (not cultures) is the end result.