The Quest for Happiness

[Matt Gregory]

Here's one, the happiest man in the world:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_b ... 171679.ece

The secret is to dwell on pleasant thoughts and suppress unpleasant thoughts during meditation. Brilliant stuff!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Wow! Isn't that the same advice given by the great philosopher Bobby McFerrin? [/sarcasm]

If this guy is an indication of what the Buddhists in the Himalayas teach, then Kevin's right - Buddhism has gone down the toilet.
.

[Matt Gregory]

Actually, the Buddhist religion has always been about that. I shouldn't really be making fun of it. I think it's a good thing that Buddhism is becoming more mainstream and making more and more people happy. If I have to live around a bunch of fools, I'd rather live around contented fools than miserable fools, and Buddhism is a lot better than other religions.

[AlyOshA]

Oh come on this man is accomplished in something at least. He mastered something in his life. That is more that most of us posters could say. Do you really consider yourself above this man?

[Nordicvs]

It never ceases to amaze me how weakling, childish humans strive for things they can never obtain, like the addiction or the self-deception of "happiness."

Oh come on this man is accomplished in something at least.

You no doubt value success highly.

He mastered something in his life.

Please...

"The mind is malleable," Mr Ricard told The Independent on Sunday yesterday. "Our life can be greatly transformed by even a minimal change in how we manage our thoughts and perceive and interpret the world. Happiness is a skill. It requires effort and time."

The art of self-deception---there's a million self-helping-guru-written rags out there that teach you how to delude yourself to a degree where nothing remains but ooey-gooey yummy-sunny bliss. Or just inject yourself with herion = same thing, without the effort.

At least he sees value in effort---I'll give him that much.

That is more that most of us posters could say. Do you really consider yourself above this man?

Never crossed my mind. But feel free to build a golden statue in his supreme honour, with a big ol' stupid grin on your mug, I won't stop you.

Wow! Isn't that the same advice given by the great philosopher Bobby McFerrin? [/sarcasm]

Ha.

[Matt Gregory]

Oh come on this man is accomplished in something at least. He mastered something in his life. That is more that most of us posters could say. Do you really consider yourself above this man?

Believe me, I have every confidence in the world that he's superior to me at meditating and making himself happy, but happiness has nothing to do with wisdom. Without wisdom all you can do is put off suffering. The only way you can truly eliminate it is to become perfectly wise.

[AlyOshA]

Matt:
"Believe me, I have every confidence in the world that he's superior to me at meditating and making himself happy, but happiness has nothing to do with wisdom. Without wisdom all you can do is put off suffering. The only way you can truly eliminate it is to become perfectly wise."

Yes I do value success. And this man has mastered something beneficial to human consciousness and made major advancements in his field of study (he obviously knows his role in the orchestra of life). I have a strong feeling that you know absolutely nothing about A= Meditation and B= His brand of meditation in particular. The genius forum does a fine job at debating for the sake of debate but most people can only give just that – criticism without resolve or contribution. So Matt, I ask you this: What wisdom do you have to offer? Please lay forth this wisdom and help us all become “perfectly wise”. Then I’ll allow you (and Elizabeth who I directed my posting to in the first place) the authority to criticize other masters.

[Nick]

Oh come on this man is accomplished in something at least. He mastered something in his life. That is more that most of us posters could say. Do you really consider yourself above this man?

I consider myself, spiritually, far above this man. So you think this man should be appluaded for throwing in the towel on wisdom, for the sake of happiness? This man is a coward, he accomplished the task of brain washing himself. I assure you this will prevent him from ever doing anything that is not evil ever again for the rest of his life. But hey, Hitler accomplished the goal of torturing and murdering millions of Jews. At least he mastered something in his life right?

Yes, AlyOshA, I am FAR above this man.

[AlyOshA]

Well Nick. It’s easy enough to say that you are far superior but much more difficult to validate it. With that I move my pawn from D2 to D4. It’s your move (whomever wants to play).

[AlyOshA]

It's funny you mentioned Hitler (and it’s rare that Hitler isn’t mentioned in philosophical discourse). I was thinking the same thing. Yes Hitler did know his role and accomplished mass destruction in a monumental way. Hitler was a smart man and had strategic reasons for doing what he did and he was undeniably successful at it. Many people changed their perception of God because of Hitler (my grandfather, who fought in WW2 became an atheist). Hitler was a watershed in the history of perception. But I don’t need to defend his significance because it is obvious. His path is not in accordance with my path (not even in the slightest) therefore he is a separate topic not relevant to the current one.

[AlyOshA]

PS My path has nothing to do with obtaining "happiness" and neither does the man in the article that inspired this thread. Happiness is just the marketing ploy just as Christianity was a marketing ploy for Martin Luther King.

[Nick]

Well Nick. It’s easy enough to say that you are far superior but much more difficult to validate it. With that I move my pawn from D2 to D4. It’s your move (whomever wants to play).

Simple, I have a conscience. This man obviously has no conscience to spend so much time masturbating until he is the happiest man on the planet, and then encourages others to join in his masturbation as well. If I didn't have a conscience I would have no problem masturbating 24/7 either.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

this man has mastered something beneficial to human consciousness and made major advancements in his field of study (he obviously knows his role in the orchestra of life).

I'm not bashing happiness. Page one of this thread is evidence of this (keep in mind as you read this link that I was still new here, and did not have their vocabulary down yet) I am indicating that there is a gap as wide as the Grand Canyon between being light hearted and spiritual enlightenment, which is what Buddhism was supposed to be about.

Understand next that I differ in my definition of happiness from what the QRS even considers an emotion. They don't see anything wrong with the state that I mean by "happiness" - they just don't call it that. Actually, I'm not sure they even have a name for it.

I acknowledge that there are both social and biological benefits to happiness. The biological benefits have been scientifically proven, and the social benefits can be logically deduced (so long as one is careful to distinguish happiness [the calm, gentle sensation] from being drunk on joy). Happiness, however, not only is not the goal, but it can not be attained if it is viewed as the goal. That was once even referred to as "chasing the dragon."

this man has mastered something beneficial to human consciousness

This part I have to disagree with. He has mastered something that could be beneficial to the human animal, and if we chase cause and effect out far enough, one could link how this could be beneficial to to human conciousness (like people wouldn't be so easily angered and prompted to shoot people who might otherwise become sages), but that is such a stretch as to not be too realistic (people inclined to shoot potential sages are not likely to be the sort who would choose to meditate on happiness).

Mastering the art of happiness does nothing to directly benefit the cause of human conciousness. The benefits are indirect only.

Most people are not even willing to put in the kind of effort needed to attain the kind of human conciousness the QRS talk about, and of those who are, not all are actually capable of accomplishing the goal. For that vast majority who are unwilling or unable to become this kind of concious, just becoming happy in a way that does not engender a backlash is a fine goal.

[AlyOshA]

I agree with you Elizabeth, but honestly I am not talking about happiness or the attainment thereof, if you knew me personally you would know that it would be comical to think of me in that light. I kind of assumed that most philosophically minded people (the kind of people that post on this forum in particular) are on the same page as to how inconsequential “happiness” is. But happiness is not the goal of Buddhism nor is it the goal of 10,000 hours of meditation. The goal of meditation is to harness, fully develop and control, and ultimately heighten consciousness. But I am not talking about meditation either. Really I want to know where people on this forum think they are going with their current approach why they are so quick to flex their unwarranted sense of superiority. All this shit talk of truth and wisdom yet it is rarely ever displayed. That is the heart of my intention.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

All this shit talk of truth and wisdom yet it is rarely ever displayed. That is the heart of my intention.

I fully agree with that. All the namecalling and accusations of being just like what the QRS describes as "woman" - basically a mindless manipulative leach - is not worth threads like "what can I do with a philosophy degree" or "what makes weather work?"

That's the main reason I find the QRS use of masculinity/"woman" vocabulary unfortunate. I recognize the point they are trying to make that women are most likely to display the characteristics that are counter to the goal of wisdom, but even if they had stuck with "femininity" as bad rather than "woman" - and Kevin's declaration on his profile page "For there to be wise men, there must first be men" leaves too many idiots feeling righteous in their stance that penis makes perfect. That isn't even what the QRS is trying to say, but the result isn't just anti-feminity, it results in antagonism that is counter to the goal of wisdom.

True wisdom transcends gender. Although it is valuable to be aware of the differences that appear in genders, it is also wise to recognize that gender belongs in the animal realms.
.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Happiness is a great goal. The problem is, this guy is not preaching happiness: he's preaching raw pleasure and giving it a noble-sounding name. Were he actually talking about happiness, he would be shunned like Socrates, not viewed as a good role model.

Happiness, in any significant sense of the term, has almost nothing to do with emotional states, no matter how long the emotional states are maintained. This guy is, as Nick pointed out, a career masturbator.

[David Quinn]

The monk seems to be promoting states of happiness which have no context. He is intent on causing feelings of happiness to spontaneously arise in his mind, but in the absence of anything in particular to be happy about. This is very similar to taking a drug.

So that would be my contention with this monk. He is, in effect, selling a happiness pill. If you take this pill and experience happiness all the time, the result can only be a severing in the connection between your emotional intelligence and the wider world. You'll actually start to become less functional and less responsive to things, just like what happens in the case of drug-addicts.

More importantly, you will lose the essential motivating factor that drives a person to desperately seek the highest wisdom - namely, the experience of suffering.

So the monk, in my view, is being very foolish. I'm surprised the Dalai Lama hasn't given him a clip around the ears ....... not.

-

[AlyOshA]

There are many different types/forms of meditation. Many forms are bogus. If the guy who is the subject of this thread meditated on "happy thoughts" then yes his form of meditation is bogus and is comparable to masturbating or drug use. But I am pretty sure that he is a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism and that his meditation is not just “positive thinking”. I think all that research about the happy part of his brain is merely a marketing ploy to sell his philosophy and I would hope that his philosophy is far more elaborate and intelligent than its surface value – but if I’m wrong then let him rot in the stink of his shallow happiness.
Meditation is essentially the study of the mind/consciousness. Those who spend 10,000 hours studying their mind using the complex and extremely difficult art of meditation are in a much better position to understand the nature of reality. If you think that endless debating and the flexing of one’s ego (which some of you might call “masculinity”) puts you in a position of superiority – then all I can do is kindly laugh in your face – then bow out with jovial good sportsmanship.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt:
"Believe me, I have every confidence in the world that he's superior to me at meditating and making himself happy, but happiness has nothing to do with wisdom. Without wisdom all you can do is put off suffering. The only way you can truly eliminate it is to become perfectly wise."

Yes I do value success. And this man has mastered something beneficial to human consciousness and made major advancements in his field of study (he obviously knows his role in the orchestra of life). I have a strong feeling that you know absolutely nothing about A= Meditation and B= His brand of meditation in particular. The genius forum does a fine job at debating for the sake of debate but most people can only give just that – criticism without resolve or contribution. So Matt, I ask you this: What wisdom do you have to offer? Please lay forth this wisdom and help us all become “perfectly wise”. Then I’ll allow you (and Elizabeth who I directed my posting to in the first place) the authority to criticize other masters.

What can I say? You win.

[Matt Gregory]

Meditation is essentially the study of the mind/consciousness. Those who spend 10,000 hours studying their mind using the complex and extremely difficult art of meditation are in a much better position to understand the nature of reality.

What do you consider to be the nature of reality?

If you think that endless debating and the flexing of one’s ego (which some of you might call “masculinity”) puts you in a position of superiority – then all I can do is kindly laugh in your face – then bow out with jovial good sportsmanship.

Don't look at me. I don't even know why I'm here most of the time.

[Nordicvs]

Yes I do value success. And this man has mastered something beneficial to human consciousness

Beneficial in what way?

and made major advancements in his field of study (he obviously knows his role in the orchestra of life).

Damn, you assume a lot and appear pretty gullible. Do you ram your fist into the pants of every person who says, "I have the answer to perfect happiness!" Or just the old ones? ;)

Seriously, do you feel that hollow and wretched inside that you must grasp at any old internet article that claims to hold the key to some relief of your unhappiness?

I have a strong feeling that you know absolutely nothing about A= Meditation and B= His brand of meditation in particular.

Nope, and I don't care. I perpetuate a state of non-happiness. So, I'm not a junkie in this respect. It works, and I continue to use it because it works.

The genius forum does a fine job at debating for the sake of debate but most people can only give just that – criticism without resolve or contribution. So Matt, I ask you this: What wisdom do you have to offer? Please lay forth this wisdom and help us all become “perfectly wise”. Then I’ll allow you (and Elizabeth who I directed my posting to in the first place) the authority to criticize other masters.

Well, I was the one who asked if valued success, not Matt, which I deduced as confusion of posters on your part. No matter. If you are addressing me:

What works for me is not seeking happiness (extended periods of joy) or pleasure, because it makes everyone an addict to one's own brain chemistry; plus, an ego-addict. It's chasing a physio-psychological dragon, and you'll end up a slave to it (to "not feeling bad"). Exactly like any drug, or food, or sex, or TV, or technology, or whatever.

Endure something painful, and continue it after recovering, repeating it, building up tolerance to pain (as well as to solitude, stress, cold, heat, exhaustion, poverty, et cetera), until you can stand long periods of great suffering. Might take a few years. After a while it'll be okay to live with only a slight yet constant feeling of discomfort. But avoiding comfort is paramount---comfort is treacherous, it's the basis of all addictive behaviour.

What used to be "unhappiness" becomes neutral. You can pretty much endure anything after a while. The absence of extreme discomfort becomes "pleasure," like the release of stress creates the illusion of peace; it is non-comfort. Don't know how "wise" it is; I haven't read of anyone who does this and have not seen anyone. I just know it works fine for me.

[AlyOshA]

"What used to be "unhappiness" becomes neutral. You can pretty much endure anything after a while."

Sounds like you're an advocate of "balance". Maybe you should direct this wisdom to the "Balance" thread in the main Genius Forum.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Endure something painful, and continue it after recovering, repeating it, building up tolerance to pain (as well as to solitude, stress, cold, heat, exhaustion, poverty, et cetera), until you can stand long periods of great suffering. Might take a few years. After a while it'll be okay to live with only a slight yet constant feeling of discomfort. But avoiding comfort is paramount---comfort is treacherous, it's the basis of all addictive behaviour.

Emphasize the recovery phase is important, as well as understand the actual limits. The military creates soldiers by breaking people down, then building them back up (and they have had centuried of tested research on how to do this to create what they want).

Without the healing phase (building people back up) or if the breaking is too harsh (especially if it is also too soon) you just end up with a broken person.

[Jamesh]

I think I'll buy this book.

The only thing of importance to me is increasing my levels of happiness - lol, without having to suffer to obtain same - something I find more and more difficult to obtain. Naturally I miss what I no longer have.

I really don't give a hoot if people think this shallow. I actually find it to be more shallow to think that Truth is of a higher value than happiness. Get real - truth is just a fantasy. It only has value relative to its utility for the creation of personal happiness/freedom from suffering or for the benefit of the herd.

In Genius News – Volume 21 Dan wrote:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~danrowd ... #happiness

Ego, Happiness and Samsara:

"Happiness is the transition from one form of suffering to another. Suffering is the transition from one form of happiness to another. Samsara is made of these transitions."

Desire is expressed in the individual because the ego - the concept held in mind of an inherently existent, separate self - has a continual and necessarily unending need to ground itself in reality, to substantiate its existence, to give itself permanence and therefore security (generated by the perception of separation). The ephemeral nature of things, however, constantly steps in to destroy that security and hence desire constantly arises. This is the basis of the forming of attachments. Attachments give a foundation and support to the idea of our existence; they ground us, our egotistical selves, in "reality" and therefore provide security, a concrete sense of being. "Happiness" is that state in which this desire for substance and security is sublimated, in whatever context that might occur. Unhappiness (suffering) is that state where ego feels insubstantial or disconnected from reality in some way (lacking in something it perceives itself as requiring). The desire for happiness may be characterised as the ego's will to security in being.

But happiness only lasts as long as the conditions upon which it is based continue to exist. Therefore happiness is not only, itself, ephemeral, it is dependent upon those continued conditions. Herein lies the beginning of a need for control of one's environment, physically and psychologically. Happiness is a state of such control and therefore, as I said before, a sense and type of power. I don't there's too much need for me to elaborate on the personal and social consequences of that need for control.

The reason the desire for happiness is delusional is that the entire above state of affairs is delusional in that the "ego" conception of self is false (i.e. there is no separate, inherently existent self) and all psychological phenomena that arise with this falsity as their basis, are also necessarily false.
=======================

Now in reference to this section and the book
But happiness only lasts as long as the conditions upon which it is based continue to exist. Therefore happiness is not only, itself, ephemeral, it is dependent upon those continued conditions. Herein lies the beginning of a need for control of one's environment, physically and psychologically. Happiness is a state of such control and therefore, as I said before, a sense and type of power.

Now Matthieu Ricard, 60, a French academic-turned-Buddhist monk, is to share his secrets to make the world a happier place. The trick, he reckons, is to put some effort into it. In essence, happiness is a "skill" to be learned.

All that is happening here is that one is making the conditions that create happiness far more dependable, in which case falling into unhappiness should be less frequent and getting back out of such a state when the conditions are broken less difficult. One needs to build a structure where happiness will appear.

Is not wisdom the same, is it not a skill to be learned, doesn’t it need to be based on solid foundations. To live in a state of the highest truth such as the QRS don’t they need the structure or living in a quite town, not working and abandoning desires. Forget about all this desire of the ego stuff – ridding ourselves of the ego simply will never happen to all but those very few destined by suffering to make themselves emotionally autistic (and you need to have started this process much younger than most of us have). In many ways a love of truth is the most egotistic thing of all. We are better off trying to train our ego. Whether the book really will teach one this is debatable, but it is worth a try.

[Nordicvs]

Sounds like you're an advocate of "balance". Maybe you should direct this wisdom to the "Balance" thread in the main Genius Forum.

Depends what is meant by "balance"---most things around here have different meanings from the ones to which I've become accustomed.

Emphasize the recovery phase is important, as well as understand the actual limits.

Naturally. Without regeneration, nothing can grow stronger. A man can endure and survive just about any crisis or disaster, for example, but without a good night's sleep, even a little bit of food and water, and some rest, he'll fall apart.

The military creates soldiers by breaking people down, then building them back up (and they have had centuried of tested research on how to do this to create what they want).

Yes. It's reducing and turning the mind into clay and then reforming it into a common shape of their own choosing---that of a stone-cold killer.

Without the healing phase (building people back up) or if the breaking is too harsh (especially if it is also too soon) you just end up with a broken person.

Indeed.

However, after a while you can push yourself beyond previous limits---such as with working out, the muscles are torn and grow stronger after recovering (the process of which takes less and less time, over time). If the weight is moved up too quickly, the person working out will reach a 'sticking point' in which he or she cannot lift any more weight, no matter what.

If the weight is moved up too slowly, the muscles are never sufficiently challenged and strength will not increase. The mind is similar to muscles (especially in the context of nonuse = atrophy).

Here's what I consider balance---between too much and not enough.