Brain Scans: Buddhists really do know secret of happiness

truth
Another Way, I do believe that to be truly buddhist is to go beyond Buddhism. As the Heart Sutra says, you must not only go to the other shore, from falsehood to truth, you must go BEYOND the other shore, beyond all dualisms: true vs. false, good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, buddhist vs. non-buddhist--even compassionate vs.selfish. Enlightenment is not to be understood in the dualistic terms of ordinary language and that of fundamentalist Christianity

hey i just got int an argument
there was this ignorent person who tried and tell me that humans by nature are destructive.

then i said compassion , what about that

he told me its a biochemical response to suffering

so then i thought looong and hard and relized

if compassion is biochemical then humans by nature (biochemical is natural for humans) is to be compashionate.

therefor being destructive is inhuman because it causes suffering...

he also told me there is no such thing as good and evil , anyone have any oppinions on that

Humans by nature is not destructive.
Humans by nature.. is that of the Buddha. (Buddha is an example of someone who is of Human's true nature)
However, the nature is covered by the 3 poisons, Lust, Hatred, Ignorance.

I think it is not good and evil but, how much the person's mind is deluded by the 3 poisons, good and evil is just our defination of their actions which is caused by the mind.

Good and Evil is too dualistic I guess.

However, Compassion still needs to be practiced even after one has realised the true nature.

surf
for somone who isnt buddhist, does that still meen buddha is in him?

im sorry but i am still learning , as i learn i become more tolerable of other ideas... thanks for the many responds i enjoy reading them...

and what if these three poisons are the key to somones heart..

Dalai Lamma has said there are rare occasions... does that meen its justifiable ???

could one be lustful and not hurt another wich then makes him/her happy without harming another?

ones ignorance can help many . a pilot can be ignorant and not fly a plain wich that could have crash in the storm ahead... its an example

hatred is just that , no one can be happy while hating

if compassion is practiced does that meen its not a part of nature? or is it that we are enhancing our gift of compassion

Buddha-nature is part of all sentient beings, but most have not realised it. If one doesn't like the word "Buddha" for any reason, he can replace Buddha-nature with "Awareness".

"for someone who isn't buddhist, does that still meen buddha is in him? "

"Buddha" is a title that means enlightened. From a Buddhist perspective, the appearance of multiplicity in the mundane world is illusory. In ultimate Reality everything is one thing. There is no time, no spacial dimensions. Being creatures in a dream without a Dreamer, we have no "soul", nor can we be a vessel for some "spirit".

"Dalai lama has said there are rare occasions... does that meen its justifiable ???"

I'm not sure what remark of his Holiness you are referring to. The Dalai lama has been one of the world's great advocates of pacifism, but I understand that recently he said something to the effect that violence may sometimes be necessary. Rather than address that notion here, please refer to the remarks in the "Buddhism and War" thread in this forum. If you have questions afterward, we will deal with them.

"and what if these three poisons are the key to someones heart." You go on to comment/question each of the three poisons; Lust, Ignorance and Hate.

"could one be lustful and not hurt another wich then makes him/her happy without harming another?

ones ignorance can help many . a pilot can be ignorant and not fly a plain wich that could have crash in the storm ahead... its an example

hatred is just that , no one can be happy while hating"

First, here is a general answer that hopefully will clear up some of the fundamentals.

There are over 5,000 Buddhist texts, the oldest in the Teravadan Canon in Pali, and the bulk in Mahayana in Sanskrit. A vast collection of texts are in Tibetan, and other Asian languages. There are countless numbers of "things" ("good" and "bad") that are given in lists so that the illiterate might better remember the teaching. Some of the lists are central to all Buddhists, some only to particular sects. I have some problems with this particular list, but in the vastness of my ignorance must grant that it is possible, though perhaps misstated.

Buddhism is like a prescription that a doctor might give when you are ill. There are symptoms that are at least uncomfortable and perhaps even painful. The doctor will make a diagnosis as to what causes the sickness, and then prescribe some course of treatment to either cure the disease, or palliate the symptoms. The disease treated by Buddhism is suffering. We all suffer. We want what we do not have, and mourn the loss of that which is no more. We become sick, old and we die. Everywhere we look there is suffering. Siddhartha wanted to find the source of suffering, and find some means to treat it. Upon Enlightenment, the Buddha went into a rich man's Deer Park and preached the most important of all Buddhist sermons. The Deer Park sermon gives us the Four Nobel Truths and the Eight-fold Path.

What causes suffering? The answer is that suffering is caused by our ignorance and attachment to the sensory world of multiplicity. We are ignorant of the Real nature of things, and so we reason that the mundane is real. Mistakes most often lead to suffering, and that is especially true when trying to deal with perceptual reality as if it were actually Ultimate Reality. Our perceptions tell us that there is time and space filled with a multitude of "things". In a world of duality, our reason tends to favor one "thing" over another "thing", and value is born. Having put value on what is ulitmately insubstantial and illusory, we naturally fall into judgements and suffering.

The cure for ignorance is learning. We learn by listening to those who know more than ourselves, and by experience. How fortunate we are to hear the Teachings of the Buddha, to be able to read those 5,000 texts written by wise men who spent their lives thinking and studying the problem, and to have a teacher that can guide us toward the light. With those signposts before us, we can shape our lives in ways that reduce suffering and bring us to the transcendental experience of Ultimate Reality where all discrimination is folded into one limitless and undivided whole. In Abrahamic terms, this is like being absorbed into God.

Lust and hatred, are only two of many conditions in the mundane world that tie us to it and cause suffering. However, they can be used to illustrate the sort of problems that have to be surmounted if we are to find surcease from suffering.

Lust gives rise jealousy, greed, envy and uncontrolled passion. All of these lead us to do things that either hurt ourselves, or cause others to suffer more than if we strangled our desire for sensual pleasure. At its heart, Lust is about reinforcing our ego; the exact opposite message from that which might lead us to find our way back to unified, undifferentiated reality outside objective time and space. Being ignorant, we still pursue sensual pleasure and suffering for ourselves and the world is the result. To treat this symptom, we try to control our appetites and practice "self" discipline. In Buddhism there is "No Self", so to be controlled by "my desires" is to participate and contribute to the illusory world.

Hate is what results when we find that our desires are frustrated. Again, our passions and emotions mistakenly lead us to do think, say and do things that increase suffering. Inner resentment busts forth into hot anger, and we strike out without consideration of the consequences.

Between the drive for extreme pleasure in the pursuit of an uncatchable happiness, and the pits of despair when our desires are thwarted, we are caught in a cycle that binds us to the illusory world. And to suffering. The greater our desire for pleasure, the greater the potential for suffering to result. As we suffer, and inflict suffering on the world, so we strengthen the foundations on which the pursuit of transient personal pleasure rest. A more rational approach is to seek the middle ground, and another name for Buddhism is The Middle Way.

The effort and difficulty of overriding the entanglements of the Floating World are not to be minimized. The discipline required of those who seek to step off of the wheel of suffering isn't universal. Buddhist priests, monks and nuns follow a very strict and spartan regime. Life in a monastery is reduced to a mind-numbing routine where little of note ever occurs. Extreme poverty, rough cloths, and a meager diet will grind most people down pretty quickly. Sex for monks isn't a "sin" in the same way that it is for someone in a Catholic monostary, but it is still on the list of things to avoid. Sitting meditation involve long hours of physically demanding posture in motionless silence. Falling asleep while sitting is a common problem. Its hard to maintain strict attention on a meditation cushion or mat. Still, the reward for the effort is greater than anything the world of duality has to offer.

In finding personal enlightenment we not only reduce the suffering that we personally must experience, we also have contributed a bit toward reducing the suffering of the illusory world outside the meditation hall. Buddhist monks, nuns, and masters are all heros ... and they are tough.

Most Buddhists aren't so dedicated and able to spend their entire lives in pursuit of the goal of enlightenment. Most Buddhists are householders and live lives not so very different than their Abrahamic counterparts. Buddhist householders are still participants in the perceptual world. They work and strive to provide good lives for their families, and they avoid the taxman with all the cunning of anyone else. When called upon by their country, they serve with honor in the military. They fall in love and are jealous when their beloved flirts with someone else. They get drunk on occasion and fight with their landlord. They hate going to the doctor, but hate sniffling and coughing even worse. What sets the Buddhist householder apart from the followers of many religions is that Buddhists should have some inkling of the destructive nature of their thoughts, words and actions. Not being completely ignorant, they can more rationally choose courses of action to limit suffering consequences.

So to your questions:

Can one be happy and lustful without causing suffering? No.

Can ignorance be bliss? No, at least not when wrestling with the problem of suffering.

truth
Thank you, Asherman, for an excellent contribution.

ditto

Does that change the fact that buddhism is inherently flawed(Yes, this is just an opinion, but it's mine damn it! :p)?
In a nutshell: You must ban desire. You must follow the eightfold path.
Ergo, you desire to follow it.
Other examples can probably be given*, but I'd like to return to basics.

*Accept all, yet do your best to change things for the better.
There is no better, there is no 'morality'. (The sky is nor good, nor bad. So is it with all (/life), the Zen master told his pupil)

Herein most likely, lays my first and fatal fault. For it's all much, much more complicated.

Rex, mucn, much more complicated...AND SUBTLE?

JLN,

Yes...I was waiting for da man Asherman to weigh in on this one...

..

My system has been down for the past several days. I'm trying to catch up, but it will take awhile since we have a housefull of grandchildren. Be patient.

However, quickly. Suffering is the result of desire, and to the extent that we obsess and focus on a desire the greater the suffering is likely to be. The real problem is attachment to self. The purpose of Buddhism is to reduce, if not conquer, the amount and degree of suffering. Desiring the end of suffering for oneself and others is not likely to increase suffering by much. Desiring personal power over others, unlimited wealth and international fame, on the other hand is almost certain to cause suffering.

The greater the "high" one pursues for themselves, the greater the potential "low". It is our purpose to reduce the "distance" between things to the point where multiplicity merges back into the undivided primal and universal.

Though the theoretical basis of Buddhism are fascinating, all the talk and intellectualizing in the world will not equal constant and daily practice of the fundamental precepts. Be patient and compassionate. Practice moderation in all things. Focus the present, let the past bury its dead and be flexible about what the future might bring. Discipline your mind, tongue, and body. Live as well as you can without un-necessarily increasing suffering. Use your mind for something besides skull-filler. Pay attention.

I appreciate the reminder, Ash. Thanks.
I want to add the complication that while one begins one's practice with the desire to end one's suffering (and that of all others), with practice this "desire" disappears because it is seen as delusional. One need not desire what one already has (completeness/buddhahood)--or rid oneself of what one does not have (a substantial ego-self).

This all sounds noble and truthful (That's the Path Asherman is sort of advising us to take), but hardly 'realistic' meaning practical (dualistic mode of living versus nondualism which allows us to understand the true nature of things better but which has no tangible form of being useful).
So what IS the secret of happiness? I'd like to follow up on bongstar420s approach some more. Drugs.

Think of things in terms of chemistry. Biochemistry to be exact. I doubt (to all you 13years olds out there that you'll ever see what we're trying to get at here concerning drugs influencing the mind in chemistry, more likely you'll see the effect in biology or something alike.

So, we're trying to be happy. Endorphines and whatnot are to be induced. We all have habits and things we like to do (enjoy doing, creating the chemicals needed to be happy, having a state of mind of peace). I like eating, I have favorite foods, I like television, I'm addicted to the computer, I'm addicted to social contact, I'm addicted to thinking and so on.
Where does addiction(in it's negative connotation) stop or start? That's ultimately the only reason we keep badmouthing drugs. Because we can get addicted or harm others. However, alcohol and smoking tabacco is tolerated and weed is not. I'm sorry for making it a topic about drugs. But I simply see strong parallels between meditation(visions and visually be stimulated by a lot of things) to which one can become addicted (you need it to be happy) and eg smoking the occasional joint.
We simply take the direct approuch(using matter to enduce states of eg awareness of pacifism) instead of the 'intangable approuch' (meaning using willpower and your abilitie to remain calm and improving it). If you hear someone under the influence speak or you hear a buddhist speak regarding the nature of reality and how we should deal with on another(the basics of buddhism), at times, you could quite possibly not hear the difference.

True enough. But one difference is, with drugs, you have to come down eventually. And over time, when you come down, you are in a worse place than where you started. I almost added "usually," but thought about it, and in my years of experience and witnessing many people take all kinds of trips, I have NEVER seen anyone be able to use drugs to achieve these states and not be negatively affected, eventually. It is such a rollercoaster ride.

I believe a difference between drugs and meditative states is that some advanced monks pretty much never come down. Stories of giving them 10 hits of acid, and it doesn't affect them.

I'm more of the school of: the correct drugs, used wisely, may be able to give you a glimpse of what is possible. But you pay for that in a dark way. And the closer to paradise one gets, the more painful it is when one inevitably gets cast out (come down).

In the end, I think drugs detract from sustained states of happiness.

To put it another way: I seriously doubt a long term drug user would have the same "positive" brain scans that is mentioned in the original post of this thread. Regardless of whether the scans were taken while high or sober.

True enough. But one difference is, with drugs, you have to come down eventually. And over time, when you come down, you are in a worse place than where you started.
I almost added "usually,"
add it, when you only smoke weed when you have something to celebrate, I doubt you'll be in a bad place the next morning.
but thought about it, and in my years of experience and witnessing many people take all kinds of trips, I have NEVER seen anyone be able to use drugs to achieve these states and not be negatively affected
There are those who might state spending days and days meditating is a negative effect. Showing little compassion and not helping other sentient beings attain enlightenment (when living in isolation). When getting high with your friends at least you're having social contact, this is something from which most people experience great deals of support, help and selfrealisation(much like labour)
, eventually.
It is such a rollercoaster ride.
So is life.

I believe a difference between drugs and meditative states is that some advanced monks pretty much never come down. Stories of giving them 10 hits of acid, and it doesn't affect them.
Mental training will make your mind work differently. That's the point. Drugs are not very precise when it comes to this. It would indeed take a lot of money and research to biochemically engineer a person to reach a state in which he is unaffected by 10hits of acid. But I think it could be done in this manner nonetheless

I'm more of the school of: the correct drugs, used wisely, may be able to give you a glimpse of what is possible. But you pay for that in a dark way. And the closer to paradise one gets, the more painful it is when one inevitably gets cast out (come down).
After realising all sorts of Truths concerning the nondualistic mode of life and that all is an illusion, I am still confronted with reality. Which can strike rather hard if you still want to function properly. JLN will want to reply concerning de- and nonattachment. Which is ok by me, because it remains a vague concept to me as he puts it.

In the end, I think drugs detract from sustained states of happiness.
Because of its primitive nature. Who knows, perhaps when we're able to manipulate DNA properly we could engineer people more accurately to always be happy and still function properly(the latter seems to be the main goal of a society)

To put it another way: I seriously doubt a long term drug user would have the same "positive" brain scans that is mentioned in the original post of this thread. Regardless of whether the scans were taken while high or sober.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree that no such drug exists (yet?). But perhaps this will one day change and as such replace all truth value included in buddhism simply because happiness can be attained otherwise. Which seems to be the main goal(happiness through compassion. I doubt many would be attracted to buddhism which obligates you to become a martyrer, even in such a case one can doubt that persons brain chemistry)



I'm confident those who reply are smart enough to know this is not a pro-drugs manifest Those of you who are simply reading this and feel they should/could not reply(you should!), I'm not saying drugs is a good thing or that you should take it! I advice against it, unless you have done extensive research on the particular drug you plan on using and know that eg your family does not have a severe problem of dementia.

To revert to the initial argument,if such it was, I find that as I get older I live more and more in the present, which is what Buddhists strive for. I think it's what used to be called wisdom, and it's what younger people don't - and maybe shouldn't - do, because they have their responsibilities and lives to make and consciousness of the future is no bad thing. The important thing for people to learn for their own happiness is, IMHO, appreciation of abundance. The thinking is well set out on http://www.rama.1901.org/ev/lois_abondance.html but in French I'm afraid. I suppose counting your blessings is the nearest equivalent in western philosophy but it is a pale version.

I'm afraid all this talk about buddhism as a means to happiness misses the point profoundly; it's not even wrong. Buddhist "enlilghtenment" is beyond happiness--and even the suffering from which the Buddha proposed to relieve us. Read (about the thinking of) Nagarguna and Dogen for a crack in the door, at least.
Aldous Huxley's experiments with drugs in the late fifties had to do with enlightenment, not with pleasure or happiness. He feared that his writings might lend "legitimacy" to those who sought happiness by means of drugs. "Liberation" goes beyond happiness and misery, indeed beyond all dualisms. It is, in large part, a freedom from the dualistic view of life.

Actually, as a lay buddhist I agree with CodeBorg's opening statement:
"So many people blindly want 100% happiness, like it's a drug.
I'd rather be human."