Human Nature - Good Or Bad

[Abandon]

Is the natural condition of the mind happiness or suffering?

This is for a presentation next week. All lines of thought welcome (psychological, philosophical, moral, christian...) and will be compared to Buddhism.

[Suthep_Steve]

In my tradition we say

The nature of the mind is clarity, and it functions to perceive objects

Is its natural condition suffering? Definitely not. Suffering is caused by delusions that obscure and corrupt the natural clarity of the mind.

Is its natural condition happiness? I would say a qualified yes. The experience of finally perceiving the internal clarity of our root mind is one of indescribable inner peace and bliss. It is so far removed from our normal ideas of happiness that we cannot imagine what it would be like. Our present experiences of happiness (I'm talking to the non enlightened members of TV here) are in reality what Buddha called the suffering of change.

For example if we have been standing for a long time we say we are happy to sit down. But in reality if we were to remain seated for a long period of time we would be happy to stand up. The reality is we are just happy that one suffering has ceased but all we have done is replace it with another.

All our human pleasures are like this, eating, sexual activity watching the football etc. Something can only be the cause of happiness if the more we do it the happier we become no matter how much we do it.

[sabaijai]

For example if we have been standing for a long time we say we are happy to sit down. But in reality if we were to remain seated for a long period of time we would be happy to stand up. The reality is we are just happy that one suffering has ceased but all we have done is replace it with another.

This observation is often made in Theravada teachings to support the basic truth of suffering in our lives. As you say, every position we take, whether sitting, standing, lying or moving about, comes in reaction to a perceived suffering. Every thought, likewise, comes in reaction to a previous thought we hope to either extend or extinguish, ever in search of an exit from suffering.

Whether there is some natural underlying mind that is pure and happy is interesting speculation but knowing or believing that does little to expedite the Path. When you're locked away in a prison cell you can deny that you're in prison, and proclaim you are actually sitting in a meadow full of fragrant flowers. If you proclaim it long enough you might come to believe it. I don't think most people can sustain that kind of visualisation very long, but for those who can, does that mean that they're not actually sitting in prison?

Suffering is, after all, the first Noble Truth, the very first teaching Gautama Buddha chose to offer to the world. Nothing in his original teachings suggests that happiness is a natural state. He didn't say "The basic truth of existence is that we are all actually happy, we just need to realise that, and here is the way to realise your true happy state."

But then I suppose it depends on how you define 'happiness'. Human experiences move through varying shades of pleasant, unpleasant and indifferent. "Happiness" is just a concept, I don't know anyone who actually knows what it is, do you? I can understand "happiness" as a transitory state, but not as a lasting one.

Then again, neither is suffering. So life isn't really either one.

This brings to mind a question someone asked Aj Chah:

Q: "What’s peacefulness like?"

A: "What’s confusion? Well, peacefulness is the end of confusion."

Likewise I don't see how you can define happiness except in contrast to unhappiness or suffering. To say that the mind is exactly one or the other seems like a rather bold conjecture from the Buddhist perspective.

By the way, pandit, I don't think the terms kusala vs akusala correlate with happy vs unhappy, at least as I understand them. These aren't lasting states, they aren't natural pre- or post-existence backgrounds for mind. These are terms used to describe individual mind-moments or citta, each one being either kusala citta, that is, skilful or wholesome citta leading towards liberation (loosening attachment). or else akusala citta, i.e., unskilful or unwholesome citta leading away from liberation (tightening attachement).

Only with cessation of akusala citta does relief from suffering occur. Before birth there was neither kusala nor akusala. Once the heaps of existence are united and the wheel of dependent co-existence is set in motion, one begins the long see-saw of akusala and kusala citta until cessation is achieved. You could call cessation "happiness" but you'd have to get specific about the qualities of this "happiness" since cessation is unconditioned. Most of our conceptions about "happiness" would involve conditioned states.

It's a bit of a moot point anyway since Gautama Buddha didn't teach much (if anything) about human nature, rather he taught about the human predicament. Had one of his followers asked him the question "Is human nature good or bad?" I suppose it may have elicited the response "This question tends not to edification."

Pierced with a poison arrow, do we ask "Is the wood of the shaft good or bad by nature?"

I take it you already have plenty of info from the Buddhist perspective, so I'm not sure any of this will be useful to you, pandit35. But I did want to make that clarification about kusala/akusla (feel free to correct me if you understand it differently).

Greater vehicle, lesser vehicle, all vehicles will be towed at owner's expense.--Kenneth Patchen

[King Of Swords]

Is the natural condition of the mind happiness or suffering?

This is for a presentation next week. All lines of thought welcome (psychological, philosophical, moral, christian...) and will be compared to Buddhism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The natural condition of the mind is niether happiness or suffering. These are of an illusory nature. One should meditate on the anialation of opposites as a means of experiencing enlightenment. happiness and suffering can only bring about each other in an eternal round of death and rebirth. The secret of life is in the opposites we seek. . . Blessings on your journey. Dom.

[Suthep_Steve]

Whether there is some natural underlying mind that is pure and happy is interesting speculation but knowing or believing that does little to expedite the Path. When you're locked away in a prison cell you can deny that you're in prison, and proclaim you are actually sitting in a meadow full of fragrant flowers. If you proclaim it long enough you might come to believe it. I don't think most people can sustain that kind of visualisation very long, but for those who can, does that mean that they're not actually sitting in prison? 

How about looking at it this way if you’re in prison but you don't think there is anything better on the outside how do you get motivated to leave?

'The Tibetan Buddhist Milarepa was once asked

In which pure land did you achieve enlightenment? He replied "In that one" and pointed at his cave'

If six beings each from one of the six realms were to look at a glass of water what would they each perceive, would they perceive the same thing, is their something inherent within the glass of water that makes it what it is from its own side?

Maybe you are right and most people cannot sustain a visualisation of a meadow filled with fragrant flowers for very long but how long can they sustain the visualisation of the prison cell before they are so knackered they have to sleep?

If you change your mind do you not change your reality?

Suffering is, after all, the first Noble Truth, the very first teaching Gautama Buddha chose to offer to the world. Nothing in his original teachings suggests that happiness is a natural state. He didn't say "The basic truth of existence is that we are all actually happy, we just need to realise that, and here is the way to realise your true happy state."

Maybe happiness was not such a great word to use when one is talking about inner peace. I don't believe we are all actually experiencing inner peace but we haven't realized it yet. I know that is an argument that some have put forward but that would be like saying that the oak tree exists inside the acorn. There is no oak tree within the acorn but the acorn has the potential to create an oak tree. In the same way the root mind of a sentient being is clouded by the delusions but it has the potential to create the experience of peace.

[Abandon]

In contrasting happiness with akusala I was thinking of the Abhidhammatta Sangaha which gives three citta groups: sobhana (beautiful), akusala, and ahetuka.

Sariputta said:

This nibbana is bliss, this nibbana is bliss.

- but how can it be bliss when there is no vedana (liking disliking)

Precisely because there is no vedana this nibbana is bliss.

The Buddha:

Even if one had to endure 100 years of utter torment this nibbana would be worth the battle. But I say Dhamma is beautiful in the beginning, the middle and the end (quoted from memory)

What a layman calls happiness is like a pile of Dung to the Ariyan

(can't quite recall the sutta name)

consider the difference between paramata Sukha (ultimate happiness) and sukha vedana.

When letting go, and letting cease, happiness arises from Nirodha (cessation) which suggests that the basic nature of the mind is happiness.

Focussing on Happiness, the cause of happiness, the ending of happiness and the path leading to permanent (paramata) happiness is a more positive approach and equally true. (look at the Samma Ditthi sutta for alternative takes on the 4NT like this).

What do the hinderances hinder.....? when they cease, happiness arises.

But what I wanted was stories, statistics, fables and parables, comparisons with other disciplines - to put into my presentation which is tomorrow evening.

[Darknight]

after a very entertaining thread in the news forum i would like to share my final thought here also

It's not by my hand but perfectly describes this subject also.

To come to know that nothing is good, nothing is bad, is a turning point; it is a conversion. You start looking in; the outside reality loses meaning. The social reality is a fiction, a beautiful drama; you can participate in it, but then you don't take it seriously. It is just a role to be played; play it as beautifully, as efficiently, as possible. But don't take it seriously, it has nothing of the ultimate in it.