Are Buddhists Happier? Part Two

[Xangsamhua]

Are Buddhists happier than other people? Part Two

2. Buddhist claims that one’s life (and that of others) will be happier if one follows the Dharma are based on the understanding that “happiness” follows from the practice of the Buddhist virtues – Karuna (compassion), Metta (loving-kindness), Mudita (sympathetic joy), and Upekkha (equanimity-in-community). These, in turn, follow from the development of Panna (wisdom), Sila (morality) and Samadhi (mindfulness). The latter three constitute the structure of the eightfold path, or way of the Buddha. In addition, the Mahayana vehicle would add the acceptance of Sunyata (emptiness) as a core component of Buddhist awareness and practice.

3. The life of the Buddhist that leads to happiness comprises the features above, and the threefold chord of wisdom-morality-mindfulness is likened by the author to a New York pretzel; they are intertwined and inseparable. Each contributes to the others. Such complexity cannot be disentwined by neurological study. Not now and probably never.

4. The life directed toward attainment of contentment and based on the development and practice of identified virtues was referred to as Eudaimonia by Aristotle and this term is used by Flanagan to describe the lifestyle and life-goals promoted by Aristotle, Gotama and Hedonists of various kinds. His focus, however, is on Buddhist eudaimonia, especially in comparison with Aristotle’s conception described in the Nicomachean Ethics. Toward the end of the book, the author brings the different conceptions together – Aristotelian, Buddhist and Hedonist – and describes himself as a Platonic Hedonist, one who seeks pleasure in the intersection of truth and beauty with virtue - Buddha or Aristotle-style – depending on the circumstances.

5. Some key questions for those who wish to attain happiness, Buddha-style, as a result of leading a life of Buddhist wisdom, virtue and mindfulness (eudaimonia, Buddha-style) include the following, for example:

a. Will the practice of Buddhist eudaimonia make me happy all the time? If I set out on the Bodhisattva or the Arahant path, will I never be sad? What of the person following the bodhisattva path who finds herself working among the dying in a Somali refugee camp? Will she not feel sad, or angry, at least some of the time?

b. If I attain truly impartial equanimity (upekkha), and two children fall into the river, one being my own child, will I toss a coin to decide which one to save, or save my own child first?

c. If I am fully aware of the emptiness of all phenomena, including myself and all other sentient beings, why should that make me compassionate towards them? Why shouldn’t I just seek my own transient and meaningless pleasures?

These questions interrogate predominantly moral principles, though the latter links wisdom and morality rather directly. Another question, based on epistemological principles included in the Buddhist wisdom tradition, follows:

d. Do I have to believe that there is some karmic force that impels people to form certain intentions and behave in certain ways, these intentions and behaviours in turn having a karmic effect? Does this karmic force override or guide the apparent randomness of mutation in the evolutionary scheme accepted by nearly all Western scientists? If I do not accept the principle of karma and its implications for rebirth and, possibly, the attainment of nirvana, can I be said to lead a Buddhist eudaimonia and, therefore, attain happiness, Buddha-style?

Flanagan has answers to these questions, but I’m not going to reveal them here.

There are many more issues and conundrums discussed in this book, and the author takes pains to deal with them fairly. An important question that has been taken up at times in this forum is the one that asks whether Buddhism, though having a highly developed doctrine of compassion, lacks a satisfactory philosophy of justice (other than karmic effect). This relates to the two ideal paths in Buddhism – the way of the Arahant in Theravada and that of the Bodhisattva in Mahayana. Whichever way is preferred for whatever reasons, Flanagan argues strongly that both compassion and justice must be informed by wisdom especially, and by mindfulness. The fruits of disembodied wisdom and unwise compassion are unlikely to be what the Buddha intended.

Of course, we will always argue over what the Buddha really intended, and this invites the question of when one can reasonably call oneself a Buddhist, or perhaps a Neo-Buddhist, or just a Buddhaphile, and when one should refrain. Flanagan, though a director of the Centre for Pragmatic Buddhism at Furman University, does not call himself a Buddhist, but he believes Buddhism to be an historical-philosophical process, not a fixed natural phenomenon (i.e. not like water, which is always H2O), so he would have a wider view of the boundaries of Buddhist identity than perhaps would many others.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[TongueThaied]

How would anybody living in Thailand know the answer. There are no real Buddhists in this country -- not even close. They're a bunch of mislabeled animists.

[Galong]

How would anybody living in Thailand know the answer. There are no real Buddhists in this country -- not even close. They're a bunch of mislabeled animists.

They tend to be the antithesis of Buddhism, very much stuck in selfhood and the shackling effect that it has.

Animists is an accurate label in my opinion.

[Xangsamhua]

How would anybody living in Thailand know the answer. There are no real Buddhists in this country -- not even close. They're a bunch of mislabeled animists.

There might be some "real" Buddhists who visit this forum. You might be one of them.

[camerata]

Thais are both Buddhist and animist. It's not a problem for them, but apparently it is for some of us.

[Xangsamhua]

Thais are both Buddhist and animist. It's not a problem for them, but apparently it is for some of us.

The Amazon reviews included an angry response from one reviewer who claimed that Flanagan was misleading the public in suggesting that Buddhists in Asia, by and large, don't meditate. The reviewer ("Occamsrazor") argued that meditation is absolutely central to Buddhism and, therefore, Flanagan can't be talking about Buddhism if he includes non-meditators under this rubric. This review attracted several interesting comments, including one from Flanagan himself.

Clearly there are different views on what actually counts as "Buddhism" and "Buddhist". Objectively, one who is brought up in a Buddhist family or culture, has heard the stories from childhood, feels like a Buddhist, identifies as a Buddhist, venerates the Buddha, performs the rites, donates, etc, is a Buddhist regardless of whether that form of Buddhism conforms to the Pali canon or some other yardstick.

Philosophically, current popular Buddhism may have deviated considerably from the early teachings. In fact, there is some evidence that, even in very early times, monastic Dhamma teachers may have modified some key teachings because the laity simply could not accept the authentic original. From memory - my source is in another place - one example would be the capacity to transfer merit from one person to another, especially where the latter is in the h_ll-realms.

[Xangsamhua]

To add a little to the discussion on whether popular Buddhism is an authentic expression of the Buddhadharma, it may be worth noting that the Roman Catholic Church, which has throughout most of its history tried to preserve orthodoxy through its Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority of the bishops with the pope having the veto, nevertheless recognizes the "sensum fidelium", the "sense of the faithful", especially in review of doctrine, where the doctrine is not dogmatic, or in matters of discipline. So the sensum fidelium may well be invoked in review of, for example, papal teaching regarding artificial birth control, priestly celibacy, or obligations regarding mass attendance and confession, where the teaching of the magisterium is deeply unpopular and has been widely honoured in the breach (or the doctrine of H_ll, which is widely rejected by both "faithful" and theologians alike).

Reference to the sensus fidelium is a clear case of authentication deriving from the ground up. It clearly has limits, however: In the Buddhist case, Dharma teachers everywhere, to my knowledge, would not budge on core teaching such as the Four Noble Truths, the need to overcome the Three Poisons, the non-essential nature of matter (and therefore the "self"), and so on. However, they may be much less dogmatic about matters such as the centrality of meditation, vegetarianism, monastic rules, the value of prayer (and sacrificial acts), and so on. The question of how one regards karma and rebirth is less clear, as this seems to be a concern only of Westerners who find it hard to fit into their epistemology. I don't think there is any sensum fidelium in the East calling for a comprehensive review of teaching on karma and rebirth; hence, I tend to think of "secular Buddhists" and the like as Neo-Buddhists. Nevertheless, it may be that Asian Buddhists need to consider the epistemology of the West (what, in fact, can we justifiably claim to be true?) and, if they find it convincing, to reconsider the dogmatic status of traditional teaching on karma and rebirth

Edited November 23, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[kropotkin]

Thais are both Buddhist and animist. It's not a problem for them, but apparently it is for some of us.

For SOME of us?

Why do you think so many sympathise with buddhism in the western world, while so few expats even respect thai buddhism?

[sabaijai]

[kropotkin]

How would anybody living in Thailand know the answer. There are no real Buddhists in this country -- not even close. They're a bunch of mislabeled animists.

There might be some "real" Buddhists who visit this forum. You might be one of them.

This topic is about buddhist being happier.

If you are a real buddhist, your answer might indicate that you are a happy buddhist.

If you are a thai buddhist, your answer might indicate that you are a bitter person.

[fullyunenlightened]

interesting subject

i asked a certain monk one time "i guess the more years as

a monk-the more peaceful he gets?"

he replied "not certain. it depends on his karmas. sometimes

neglected karmas come up and have to be dealt with. dealing

with them is not pleasant. these things have to be endured. its

enduring suffering which leads to the ending of suffering. can have

multiple karmas at on time too. more suffering. yes, there maybe

some peace sometimes but its not recommended to stay there

too long. better, go find situations which bring up more karmas to be

let go of. eg practicing under a 'hard' teacher."

same applies to happiness, i think. you got a lot of heavy karmas

youre not going to experience much happiness. one cause for

happiness is developing lovingkindness. but it could take a long

time before you get fruits from that practice. it isnt as easy as

you thought. (for some people it is easy)

the tibetans say "dont waste your precious human rebirth on a

happy life"

my own teacher had a real contempt for happiness.

yet another tibetan guru said "most of our suffering comes from

trying to be happy"

meditators should have no business per suing/developing

happiness. better they try to let go of it and be free

[swisstouristpattaya]

I am a real Buddhist.

Stop to think about yourself. You wont change the universe. Life is short. Waste it ,because nobody care about you. You will eventually die and reborn in a dog body. Do you think dogs care?

The whole world is f....d anyway.

So be happy.

[Xangsamhua]

interesting subject

i asked a certain monk one time "i guess the more years as

a monk-the more peaceful he gets?"

he replied "not certain. it depends on his karmas. sometimes

neglected karmas come up and have to be dealt with. dealing

with them is not pleasant. these things have to be endured. its

enduring suffering which leads to the ending of suffering. can have

multiple karmas at on time too. more suffering. yes, there maybe

some peace sometimes but its not recommended to stay there

too long. better, go find situations which bring up more karmas to be

let go of. eg practicing under a 'hard' teacher."

same applies to happiness, i think. you got a lot of heavy karmas

youre not going to experience much happiness. one cause for

happiness is developing lovingkindness. but it could take a long

time before you get fruits from that practice. it isnt as easy as

you thought. (for some people it is easy)

the tibetans say "dont waste your precious human rebirth on a

happy life"

my own teacher had a real contempt for happiness.

yet another tibetan guru said "most of our suffering comes from

trying to be happy"

meditators should have no business per suing/developing

happiness. better they try to let go of it and be free

And yet, in The Art of Happiness (1998, 2009), the Dalai Lama has said this:

"I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness. That is clear. Whether one believes in religion or not, whether one believes in this religion or that religion, we all are seeking something better in life. So, I think, the very motion of our life is towards happiness."

See also http://www.awakeblogger.com/2008/09/the-dalai-lama-guide-to-happiness/

In The Bodhisattva's Brain, Flanagan says of the Dalai Lama's assertion that it is contrary to what most, but not all, Buddhologists believe the Buddha taught. (Kindle location 984-991) This is an interesting claim. However, it is also obvious that HHDL does not believe happiness will be found in the search for wealth, pleasure, self-aggrandizement or any of the other poisonous attachments. To free oneself of these poisons requires growth in compassion, loving-kindness and equanimity, and this in turn needs to be accompanied by wisdom, a moral code and mindfulness. Unwise and unguided compassion, for example, can generate unexpected and unwholesome outcomes.

I think it is incontestable that we all seek happiness in one form or another. We do not dedicate our lives to unhappiness as an end in itself. Where we welcome suffering we do so as a means to an end, to reduce our own further suffering, or to ease the greater suffering of others. If we believe our suffering has a purpose of this kind we are happy to undergo it.

I don't believe the Buddha taught his disciples to live simply, forgo pleasures and contemplate the emptiness of phenomena because he wanted them to suffer. Quite the contrary.

[fabianfred]

The Buddha only taught about suffering and the relief of suffering.

Naturally freeing ourself of suffering brings its own kind of happiness, but the goal is the relief by attaining Nibbana.Happiness is often even more destructive than suffering since both obscure us from reality but although we like to find releif from suffering we don't so quickly look for relief from happiness. It is too easy to get attached to happiness ..... which only leads to suffering.

Edited November 27, 2011 by fabianfred

[Xangsamhua]

The Buddha only taught about suffering and the relief of suffering.

Naturally freeing ourself of suffering brings its own kind of happiness, but the goal is the relief by attaining Nibbana.Happiness is often even more destructive than suffering since both obscure us from reality but although we like to find releif from suffering we don't so quickly look for relief from happiness. It is too easy to get attached to happiness ..... which only leads to suffering.

Thanks Fred.

The term "happiness" is elusive.

That relief from suffering brings its own kind of happiness reminds me of Schopenhauer's view that happiness is simply the absence of pain (suffering).

In the Sukha Sutta, the Buddha says:

"There are, O monks, these three feelings: pleasant feelings, painful feelings, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings."

Be it a pleasant feeling, be it a painful feeling, be it neutral,

one's own or others', feelings of all kinds

he knows them all as ill, deceitful, evanescent.

Seeing how they impinge again, again, and disappear,

he wins detachment from the feelings, passion-free.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.002.nypo.html

These remarks seem to be consistent with what you have said - that happiness as a composite of feelings isn't something to be sought or attached to. It is a false friend.

Owen Flanagan would agree with you, and that is part of the reason he rejects the claim that one can determine the extent of a person's "happiness" by neurological measurement. Happiness is not so much a feeling - elation, for example - as a product of eudaimonia, a way of life, and that way of life, though it may include pleasant, painful and neutral feelings, could be said to be a happy one and worthy of pursuit.

Of course, there is a danger of circularity here. If we define happiness in terms of the way of life advocated by the Buddha, then that way of life must be seen as a happy one, even though on other criteria it may not be viewed as happy. A very focussed Buddhist, who on observing his own feelings judges them to be simply pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, will never be happy or sad, and, if consistent, will have little feeling for the sufferings or joys of others. But this seems exclusively intellectual and contrary to the imperative to be compassionate. Such a way of seeing the world is dispassionate in the extreme, realistic perhaps but superhuman.

I suspect the doctrine of Nibbana, the state to be attained subsequent to and as a result of such extreme detachment, has never been adequately explained. To actively seek cessation, an unconditioned state beyond and excluding being, seems neither a logically nor psychologically rational pursuit, especially if in the process one has to reject feelings of compassion and whatever happiness is derived from leading an aware and balanced life. Realism and awareness of non-duality while dwelling in Samsara are components of wisdom, but wisdom (knowing what ought to be done) needs to be balanced by morality (doing what ought to be done), and these together generate compassion and loving-kindness.

The path of the arahant is a singular one and prepares him for Nibbana, the cessation of being. That is the arahants reward and the outcome of a practice marked by concentration.

The path of the bodhisattva is not so much preparatory as practical and marked by compassion, to bring all deluded and suffering beings eventually to … what? Nirvana is just as elusive a concept in Mahayana as it is in Theravada, but there is the suggestion that it is in some way a state of bliss which justifies the bodhisattvas efforts and unlimited compassion.

Happiness as a form of eudemonia is clearly a sub-nirvanan state, a samsaric condition. Is it consistent with the Buddhas teaching to wish for this and work towards it while in Samsara, or should one go directly into Nirvana-preparation mode, a focus on the ultimate, one which denies the legitimacy of experiencing joy, satisfaction, compassion, love, kindness or a sense of well-being? The latter mode would make the Dharma the religious practice of an elite. That may be what the Buddha intended, but once out there even the Buddhas teaching becomes subject to the social and cultural ecologies in which it finds itself.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Polsci]

Are Buddhists happier? Than whom? Than worshippers of other religions? Nah.

[udonguy]

Thais are both Buddhist and animist. It's not a problem for them, but apparently it is for some of us.

you forgot the 'Hindu' bit too - they are a mix of all three and I have to agree with the other posters that it is quite contrary. I was speaking to a 'Buddhist' only yesterday who professed a belief in 'God' now that IS bizarre

[rockyysdt]

I suppose it's how you interpret happiness.

Through greed, aversion & delusion, we spend our entire lives chasing happiness.

We can experience intense feelings of joy and states of pleasure, when our desires are fulfilled but these are short-lived.

We then find ourselves spending our entire life and resources chasing repeat episodes of such pleasure only to find that these no longer please us.

We then become caught in a spiral of more, and different, in an attempt to capture the original joy.

We can never quench our aversion or greed.

However a practicing Buddhist can diminish their attachment to greed, aversion & delusion, and become free.

This freedom can be referred to as true happiness.

Naturally talking and knowing about Buddhism will not make one happier.

This can only come about through regular practice.

The eightfold path makes such practice clear.

I understand that many subscribe to pure awareness (mindfulness) as the way.

I'm clear that the Buddha placed equal emphasis on concentration.

Samadhi:

Right Effort.

Right Mindfulness.

Right Concentration.

Practice these along with Panna & Sila daily with right effort and you will experience life in a happier state than you would otherwise.

One can never rest or be truly happy living their lives in delusion chasing unquenchable greed and aversion.

Edited December 24, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Practice these along with Panna & Sila daily with right effort and you will experience life in a happier state than you would otherwise.

One can never rest or be truly happy living their lives in delusion chasing unquenchable greed and aversion.

Oh, I forgot.

So the answer is "Buddhist are no happier than the rest of the population, unless they practice the eightfold path with right effort".