A buddhist's guide to happiness, through the krys-filter

[shodoshan]

Someone posted a very cynical "buddhist's guide to happiness", with a challenge for apologists to step up and explain it away. I feel like the people commenting on his entry did a good job of clarifying his misunderstanding of the philosophy, but it got me thinking

Comments

didn't intend to be cynical

[jorhett]

I didn't intend to be cynical. I meant only to point out that being non-attached is only half the thing.

None of the things you've mentioned below would help someone get out of a situation which is bad for them. In fact, everything I have ever read about buddhism advocates not acting, and giving up hope for change.

I'm saying that real life, as opposed to life in a monastery, requires action sometimes. Yes, we should be non-attached. But sometimes we should act to make things better, rather than sitting sit and letting bad things continue.

Re: didn't intend to be cynical

[shodoshan]

You're completely right. Being non-attached IS only half the thing.

Actually, buddhism very much advocates acting, and doesn't ask you to give up hope. I thought that didjiman explained that very well in your lj.

You're absolutely supposed to act to make life better, which I describe in #s 3,5,7,9 and 11 (heh, didn't mean to do that) above. And if applied correctly, they do help someone get out of a situation that's bad for them.

I can send you an email where I explain how applying my philosophies can help someone get out of all the scenarios you listed in your LJ, if you want. But I don't think you want.

*hug*

This post wasn't meant to make you feel defensive. You just got me thinking, was all.

Re: didn't intend to be cynical

[jorhett]

Well in the book I am reading it consistently advocates not acting. "What should I do?" == "Abandon Hope"

I also have read your post and didn't see any action in any of the numbers. This may be my problem, and why I have a problem with it. But none of those numbers above suggest doing anything other than accepting it as it is.

Re: didn't intend to be cynical

[jorhett]

I also have read your post and didn't see any action in any of the numbers.

So I've read and re-read and I'm back to the same point. Nothing in any of these numbers says to do anything other than relax and accept.

So me where any of these would cause me to hire a lawyer to defend myself, which you felt strongly I should do? According to all of these numbers, I should accept the change in my life and be willing to move onward with my new life as a Felon.

Hiring a lawyer to defend myself is absolutely not accepting and relaxing with my new status.

[chapel_of_words]

I may be going out on an extreme limb here but perhaps another number to add:

#12: This life isn't the only go you'll have at life.

Tim C.

[shodoshan]

definitely one of the buddhist principles, but does it help you along the road to happiness? I left it out of my list because for me, that knowledge doesn't help very much. How do you feel about it?

[chapel_of_words]

Well I believe in reincarnation. That's the glass analogy from the wedding - each life is like pulling a half glass of water from the lake, and throughout life we add in all sorts of other streams, flavors, botiques and blends - and when this life is over we pour the water back in, take a new half glass and start again (or if you believe in afterlife you jump in the lake and go "elsewhere"). So it's not a buddhist belief...but it does I think, at least me, mean I'm happier about life

playing Devil's Advocate

[jorhett]

just in case it isn't obvious, shodoshan and I are enjoying batting back and forth in a public place a topic we are almost entirely in agreement about. I'm playing a bit of a devil's advocate, since I absolutely agree with everything about non-attachment. I'm just advocating that many books (and even the list she posted) does not include the idea of actually acting.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, or even that it isn't implied. I'm arguing that it's not stated.

Re: playing Devil's Advocate

[lobolance]

I ended up listening to a bunch of podcasts to hear more thinking about buddhist stuff, because I was stuck in some of the same places around 'action' (not wanting to be a doormat in life just to be 'spiritual' ;-) ); also had a one on one with a teacher 'cause I knew he was an activist (as I have been); clearly he 'does' stuff. That was helpful. Still, some days it makes more sense than other. But as didjiman said 'right action' (going with the non-attachment to outcome so you can then take the next right-action step)is the directive I think. Am very interested to see what else he posts!

Re: playing Devil's Advocate

[jorhett]

But as didjiman said 'right action' (going with the non-attachment to outcome so you can then take the next right-action step) is the directive I think.

Yes, absolutely. I just don't see the "right action" acknowledged anywhere. I don't think the Buddhists have got this part.

Re: playing Devil's Advocate

[lobolance]

As I understand it, they have it. However, it never seems to be in the first three hours of talking buddhism! Which I think drives a lot of people away.

Corollaries.

[amilori]

I'm always surprised when someone outlines these principals but leaves out the corollaries

Re: Corollaries.

[shodoshan]

Nicely put. For me, the corollaries are all implied in what I said, but you're correct that it's helpful to explicitly list them.

:D

[garwalf]

So much great stuff I spent lots of time reading, stayed up past my bed time, don't want to spend lots of time writing, and have forgotten much of what I was thinking. So a quick 2 cents

[shodoshan]

well said!