Brain Scans: Buddhists really do know secret of happiness

truth
Halo, I started but gave up looking for the quote, "grasping at things can yield one of two results: Either the thing you are grasping at disappears, or you yourself disappear. It is only a matter of which occurs first." You respond with "That['s] the problem with the world." Do you mean that GRASPING is the problem with the world? If so, I agree. In the sense of Buddhism's (as I understand it, from personal experience--I dislike reading statements ABOUT buddhist doctrine, which is why I couldn't bring myself to track down the quotation) observation that grasping itself fortifies the delusion of an ego-self. When I give up grasping, usually in meditation, ego fades and only observation/experience exists (objects without subject).
For that reason, I disagree with the quotation (assuming I understand it correctly), that "either the thing you are grasping at disappears, or you yourself disappear." On the contrary, the act of "grasping at" things or ideas itself maintains or brings "yourself" (if by that you mean ego-self) into existence.

JLNobody,

The process of labeling by the Feeling Aggregate usually only takes a fraction of a second. After applying the label, we tend to create a static opinion and image of the object in our mind. At this stage, the seed for prejudice is often planted. Once we have established the opinion that something is pleasant or unpleasant, we often need a large amount of evidence before we are willing to change our mind - that is, if we are prepared to change our mind at all.

Once we labelled an object unpleasant or bad, it appears as if the object is all bad by itself, as if badness is an inherent quality. We may label a person "bad", but the friends of this person would certainly not agree!
Therefore, we need to realise that "good" and "bad" are merely subjective opinions of our mind, and the opinion is often founded on nothing more than a first glance and an almost automatic label. Things and people change quicker than our labels! Everyone tends to prejudice. Labelling is a convenient way to quickly make some sense of our surrounding world by categorising things in being "good" or "bad" to us. The main problem is that we tend to react to the world merely via these (over) simplified labels.

truth
Halo, can't argue with that. But I don't see the continuity between your descripton of what happens and what we have been discussing so far. It is well established in anthropology that our perceptions are instantly shaped by our cultural conditioning. And you are right that we convert the realilty of moving processes ("becoming") into fixed or static categories of things, qualities and types of events ("being"). And I suppose this is necessary because language--the tool for configuring experience such that we can make sense of it and share it with others of our culture--is noun-oriented. Verbs are little more than what nouns do. If there is a problem here it is probably in the act of REIFICATION, the forgetting of how our world of beings comes about; they exist as OUR collective and individual inventions and constructions and not as pre-experiential givens (that is known as Naive Realism). Feeling Aggregates do not appear with meanings intact. They eixts first and then we give them meaning (their essences). This is, I understand, the core notion of Existentialism: Existence precedes essence.
This process of reification is part of what is referred to in the Buddhist notion of "attachment" We live in a world of our own making but believe its mental contents to be real. This is known as, what Asherman called, "the illusory world of Maya."
Your reference to the automatic tendency of perceivers to label reified categories of experience as either good or bad--the Biblical act of eating from the tree of good and bad....--is another aspect of attachment. Buddhism attempts to transcend such fixed categories of thought and evaluation in order to see Reality more as it is. This reminds me of the title of one of Nietzsche's classics, Beyond Good and Evil.

Funny thing is that a good trip will put all of these things in your head and you wont even realize it. Especially if you listen to all those people advocating about drugs are bad (the realization of reality and unreality of coarse). Ah but Im just a rambling idiot. So keep on trying to comprehend, while I accecpt what the reality of existance is. Under the influnce of coarse.

Hm so your point is? You are smoking weed?

What the moral of this saying ?

HI JLNobody,

My First quote is merely a open statement , It is a statement by the meditation master Goenka.

Than you replied to mine message, Stating from your point of view.

The 2nd message that i post is refering to ur commentry on "Your" point of veiw on the open statement.



The 3rd message that I post is refering to yours


Than Finally this message that you are looking at... Is to help you link all the message together...

And lastly, Thanks for sharing your point of veiw.

grandure in its finest!

Can we just clarify some points?
Hey, for a beginner whose very interested in buddhism, could we just clarify some basic points about buddhist beliefs?
Thanks!

Please read the posts above first. Those may answer your questions. If not, then ask what it is that puzzles you. What do you want to know?

To clear up some old arguments of mine
My arguments before is that wich the Dalai Lama has spoken of in his book "Ethics For The New Millennium". i'm just trying to is clear this forum up on false assumptions. The Dalai Lama himself said that religion is NOT a necessity and you can be happy and compassionate without the teachings of a religion.

He also states in chapter 15 "The Role of Religion in Modern Society" had been the major source of conflict throughout human history and even in our everyday life. The way around this is to accept eachothers differences, learn eachothers religions and understand that they are just different ways to go about the same goal.....

in ch 16 " An Appeal" he states that his true religion at heart is NOT buddhism but in fact it is his necessity for love and compassion.
after this he goes on and says there is no need for a church or temple/ philosophy, doctrines, or dogma.... our own heart and mind is the temple, the doctrine is compassion..... "the love for others and respect for their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are: ultimately THESE ARE ALL WE NEED"....

i believe with this said this discussion should now come to a peaceful end and now be a discussion on how we can go about becoming compassionate....

I understand if my thoughts about this were out of line but i was trying to bring it about in a more modern persepctive....

hey i need help with my college essay
I need to know the Buddhist oppinions on suicide...

for and against...

if anyone has any information could the be compassionate enough to reply

Read my comments on suicide in the "...Buddhism irked you lately" thread in this forum. The comments, which were around the middle of
October of 2003, were only one of several postings dealing with this subject. Read the comments, and if you have any further questions, post them here.

thank u
that is a great help , i been searching for weeks and got very little..

thanks for the help it was greatly needed.

hmmm i canot find it
hello i was looking for it and i cant find it , is there any way you can get the information to me? my email is [email protected].... or maybe a link???

thank you

Does buddhism produce happiness, or does happiness produce buddhism?

odd comment
I would say niether, the Dalai Lama would say neither.
he would say compassion and love is its own religion all itself
and buddhism is just one of the many ways to achieve love compassion and happiness

does any agree
would any agree with my post before quoting the dalai lama??

and considering this book had alot to do with this thread.....

its about finding true happiness.

truth
Anotherway, as I understand Buddhism one of its major tenets is the need to transcend all dualisms. Therefore the distinction between happiness and unhappiness is a an obstacle to the "bliss" of enlightenment. "Bliss" is a very misleading term here, as is "sorrow" (which is used in the translations of the words of Buddha). So, if that is right we do not free ourselves from the veil of maya by "finding happiness." This a very difficult notion for most people. When the zen master, Shunryu Suzuki, used to tell his students to meditate without notions of gaining anything, including happiness, this must have perplexed many. But the transcendence of dualism is one of the profound subtleties of buddhist practice. But you DID say "TRUE" happiness. Perhaps that refers to the state of enlightenment which transcends ordinary dualistic happiness (vs unhappiness)

at this time im only a freshman in college and im in the process of learning what i can. maybe you are right in a sense because i have not yet reached my goal in knowledge, but the dalai lama in this book went beyond buddhism, beyond their beliefs, and beyond his not so happy past...

your right in a way and your wrong in a way, if he was speaking on buddhists terms then your right, but he was speaking beyond religion.

Happiness will only come when you can understand the opposite...

in order to obtain happiness you must have compassion.

compassion is the ability to help others in need, to love, to do good, to give what you can so another can be happy...

in a world without these evils how can it be possible to be compassionate?