"life Is Easy, Why Do We Make It So Hard"

[suegha]

What do you mean - ability to die? Do you mean a suicide? Otherwise it does not seem to be the option that requires any special ability.

What what point during evolution was death introduced. So I suppose the wording 'capacity' would be better than ability.

Or, if you choose to ignore evolution (as I do) why do we die?

[Plus]

That might be an interesting question in itself but it's a part of the larger one - what is life? From evolution's point of view there's no life as such - just an exceptional combination of chemicals that for a certain period appears as what we call life. What we call death means very little chemically, too - just another transformation caused by external forces, natural change.

I mean even computer chips have a lifespan - a certain number of operations, after which the little semiconductors deteriorate and your computer dies. You can even kill it - just physically damage teh circuits, or poison or drown it in water.

[chownah]

That might be an interesting question in itself but it's a part of the larger one - what is life? From evolution's point of view there's no life as such - just an exceptional combination of chemicals that for a certain period appears as what we call life. What we call death means very little chemically, too - just another transformation caused by external forces, natural change.

I mean even computer chips have a lifespan - a certain number of operations, after which the little semiconductors deteriorate and your computer dies. You can even kill it - just physically damage teh circuits, or poison or drown it in water.

The Buddha used the word "annica" to describe what you are talking about. Annica means "impermanent". The Buddha taught that all the things we experience in our everyday life are impermanent....annica. It is this very impermanence that makes our everyday existence unsatisfactory. The term the Buddha used for the unsatisfactoriness of existence was "dukkha". And the Buddha taught that the reason this impermanence causes the dukkha is that we all live under the assumption that we each have a certain type of self (or ego) but this assumption is a false one and we really do not have the kind of self that we imagine...but it is just an assumption and to maintain this false impression we view things as being permanent (which they are not) and thus our view of the world is one of dukkha or unsatisfactoriness since we keep looking for something that is fixed and eternal but in our everyday way of looking at the world we will never find it.

This is all very very simplified and supreficial and I'm not trying to convince you that I have portrayed a comprehensive view of the Buddha's teachings. It's just a few things that I think relate to Plus's post.....and are actually relavent to a forum that by title at least is about Buddhism.

Chownah

[Plus]

So the question then would be where did the idea or permanence and eternity came from? It is not an observable phenomenon yet every human sort of "knows" what it is, and many strive for it. However, if you look at it closely, you'll see that what we "understand" by eternity is simply a long, long time - time going from past to the future. Does it even exist in eternity?

See, we know what the concept is, or at least claim to know, but when we try to desrcibe it, we fail.

So where did this idea of eternity come from? Or are we just fooling ourselves and what we are looking for is not the eternity but simply incomprehensibly long period of time?

Edited August 17, 2006 by Plus

[sabaijai]

So the question then would be where did the idea or permanence and eternity came from? It is not an observable phenomenon yet every human sort of "knows" what it is, and many strive for it. However, if you look at it closely, you'll see that what we "understand" by eternity is simply a long, long time - time going from past to the future. Does it even exist in eternity?

See, we know what the concept is, or at least claim to know, but when we try to desrcibe it, we fail.

So where did this idea of eternity come from? Or are we just fooling ourselves and what we are looking for is not the eternity but simply incomprehensibly long period of time?

Some philosophers and scholars of comparative religion theorise that beliefs in immortality and eternal (after-)life are formalised extensions of the self-preservation instinct.

[camerata]

What does every individual animal care about procreation? What's in it for them? They would die anyway, with or without offspring. I can see from "species" point of view - it would die without procreation, but individuals? They appear to work for some after death benefits of the species.

So yes, Darvin explained HOW it works, but I still don't know why, for what purpose, under which force.

You're still assuming some volition where there is none. Individuals don't care about procreation and species don't care about procreation - evolution has left them with a genetic tendency for procreation. It's a completely random process where genes mutate due to solar radiation and over millions of years certain mutations prove advantageous and their lineage persists. 99.9% of the mutations are not viable and perish.

So penguins don't "accept hardships in a firm belief that it will bring definite benefits in the future," they simply follow the dumb urges that genetic programming has given them. They don't know why they do it.

There's no purpose involved in evolution in the sense that someone or something wants it or designed it for a purpose - unless you believe in a Creator. We tend to think that life is highly significant, or our planet and solar system are significant because they support life, but they are only significant because we are an intelligent species thinking about it. From a cosmic perspective it's just like the occasional throw of the dice that comes up with two sixes. It's the same with the universe - it seems significant because the fundamental physical laws (speed of light, gravity, etc) support an ordered universe which can support life. It seems like there must be a purpose behind it. But scientists believe that the norm is a disordered universe with chaotic physical laws. Over billions of years there is big bang after big bang and billions of disordered universes, then every now and again two sixes come up and we get an ordered universe. It's a random process that throws up an anomaly every now and again which only seems significant to intelligent life who benefit from it. No purpose is involved.

All this sounds depressing because we have an ego that likes to think we are special and here for a purpose. That's where Dhamma comes in - we make getting rid of the ego our purpose in life.

[camerata]

Regarding evolution, there's a view that the arahant (Theravada) or the bodhisattva (Mahayana) is literally the pinnacle or final stage of evolution. It's an interesting idea because if in fact the number of arahants kept increasing, mankind probably wouldn't evolve much more.

From an individual perspective, it may well be true. From the perspective of our species, I see a couple of problems. One is that the number of arahants tends to decline rather than increase after the death of a buddha. The other is that man's evolution is no longer natural or random. Man is now putting his own will into evolution.

I read a book on genetics a couple of years ago that pointed out that genetic engineering is driven by supply and demand rather than ethical or moral considerations. Governments don't determine what is done (despite trying), parents do. And parents will go to any country that will do what they need.

The author (a geneticist) extrapolated what would be possible in the near future and beyond, and it went something like this. Gradually more and more of the genes and gene-combinations that control characteristics and behaviour will be discovered. At present we can do some engineering to fix faulty genes, but ultimately we'll be able to add or subtract genes to provide custom-made babies. With (rich) parents driving the business, eventually they'll be able to order up a baby with the ideal physique, ability and inclination to be a quarterback or a physicist.

Over a period of time, this genetically rich level of society (which he called GenRich) would voluntarily separate itself from (relatively poor) natural humans and after more time its DNA would be different enough that cross-breeding would not be possible and it would be a new species. In the author's scenario, the GenRich use their skills and money to move out to other planets in the galaxy and leave the natural humans to suffer on a polluted and overcrowded earth.

It doesn't sound too far-fetched to me. The sad thing is that I doubt any of those parents would ever want to have a baby genetically engineered with the potential to be an arahant. Wanting perfect babies seems to be a major ego-trip and a way of ensuring immortality of a kind.

[Plus]

You are of course right, Camerata, if you look at it from Buddhist point of view. But I think evolutionists themselves are not ready to admit that there's no purpose in life and there's no volition and all this odd behavior is caused by genes. Darvin himself believed in God, btw.

This view is in the realm of philosophy, not science. From scientific, hard facts, point of view, there are precious few facts to support this theory.

Take genes - so far we know that they determine one's predilection and propensity, but not exact timing of "dumb urges". They didn't even consider this possibility in the book you mentioned - the author still assumed that there's a degree of free will. Or take conscience and life - if they managed to produce artificial life, can they build artificial conscience to go with it?

Possibly yes, but so far there's big gap between dead matter and life, between level of conscioseness of chimps and humans and science can't explain it.

On the other hand, if all life with all its struggles is a result of random combination of genes that predetermine our "dumb urges" and there's no volition at all, then how Buddha was any different? Woulnd't it be possible to say that he has experienced just another interesting combination of electro-magneitc waves triggering funny sensations in his neurosystem? Or that you and me reading this forum and times of our logging in and out are predetermined by genes, too? And that people's interest in Buddhism is just another fluke in their genetic make up, and soon it will be wiped off along with the other 99,99% of genetic permutations.

[camerata]

You are of course right, Camerata, if you look at it from Buddhist point of view. But I think evolutionists themselves are not ready to admit that there's no purpose in life and there's no volition and all this odd behavior is caused by genes.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was describing Camerata's Theory of Purposeless Existence and suggesting Budhism as a solution rather than expressing the Buddhist perspective. I think the Buddhist perspective is that existence is samsara and our purpose is to get out of it. The "force" that causes much of what happens in life is karma.

Darvin himself believed in God, btw.

This view is in the realm of philosophy, not science. From scientific, hard facts, point of view, there are precious few facts to support this theory.

Sure, but there aren't any facts that disprove it or support the God theory either.

Take genes - so far we know that they determine one's predilection and propensity, but not exact timing of "dumb urges".

I'm not sure which urges you're talking about, but for example birds procreate or migrate once a year at a particular time because of genetic predilection and hormones.

They didn't even consider this possibility in the book you mentioned - the author still assumed that there's a degree of free will. Or take conscience and life - if they managed to produce artificial life, can they build artificial conscience to go with it?

I never said we don't have free will. Clearly we do, on a subjective basis. Life may have no special purpose but that doesn't mean we can't make our own choices. Of course, one's choices are determined by one's genetic history and life experience.

Possibly yes, but so far there's big gap between dead matter and life, between level of conscioseness of chimps and humans and science can't explain it.

True enough, but there's a big gap between encountering something that's amazing and as yet unexplained and deciding that it must have been created with some Cosmic Purpose. From a Buddhist perspective, it's this idea that we humans are special - and I, the individual, am special and separate from others - that causes all the suffering.

On the other hand, if all life with all its struggles is a result of random combination of genes that predetermine our "dumb urges" and there's no volition at all, then how Buddha was any different? Woulnd't it be possible to say that he has experienced just another interesting combination of electro-magneitc waves triggering funny sensations in his neurosystem? Or that you and me reading this forum and times of our logging in and out are predetermined by genes, too? And that people's interest in Buddhism is just another fluke in their genetic make up, and soon it will be wiped off along with the other 99,99% of genetic permutations.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't saying that people don't have volition, I meant that there is no volition on the part of a Creator that made the universe the way it is and created a special purpose for mankind.

As for dumb urges, I was referring to the penguins you mentioned and to animals in general. For humans, it's a bit different because we are more intelligent. We still have the dumb urges like sex (how dumb is that!) and violence but sometimes we can overcome them if we have a good enough reason. In fact, what the Buddha taught was about overcoming the dumb urges and overcoming the uniquely human problem of ego-urges.

That's an interesting point about Buddhism and genetic predisposition. I would say most Westerners become interested in Buddhism because it offers a solution to their problems. But there may be some genetic factors that predispose some people to enjoy or be good at meditation, or to prefer a non-egotistical way of life. In my case, as it happens, I had a grandmother who was a Theosophist. Coincidence?

[chownah]

About predetermined existence..I think the Buddha said that if someone truly believed in predestination then they would not study or practice any skill because what would be the point since it is already predetermined that you will either be skillful or not so why waste the effort to improve.

So, if you really believe in predestination then stop studying and stop working at improving your skills or improving your position in life because there is no point in wasting your efforts.......I think that very few people will take this advise.....this show that there are very few people who truly believe in predestination.

[Plus]

I don't see how penguins behavior can be easily explained from "survival of the species" point of view. Genetics might provide a clue - hormones produced at certain time of the year urge the birds to leave their food and start migrating, for three weeks non-stop, long before they even start engaging in mating rituals. It could possibly be so. I brought them up initially looking for some explanations of this "voluntary" penance. Genetics could be it but it's far from clear.

If, however, they have a higher purpose in life, and are guided by God through samsara so that one day they might become humans, it makes perfect sense.

there is no volition on the part of a Creator that made the universe the way it is and created a special purpose for mankind.

Though obviously you don't believe in any special, God given purpose.

God here means fellow who invented and created the universe and started all life. If he did it, it's naturally to assume that he had some purpose, as he made the whole world going on this cause-effect principle.

The creation is not discussed very much in Buddhism, what about origin of life, origin of souls, their desitnation, their purpose if there's any? Can those penguins become humans? Under what conditions?

Is Blavatsky your granma then? The stuff she wrote didn't make much sense to me - it was like free flowing of ideas, without ever pausing to consider how it sounds to sane people. Fascinating stuff, but I just can't force myself to take it seriously. Middle Earth from Lord of the Rings looks more real to me.

[camerata]

The creation is not discussed very much in Buddhism, what about origin of life, origin of souls, their desitnation, their purpose if there's any? Can those penguins become humans? Under what conditions?

Well, the web is full of stuff about this if you're really interested, and it's written much better than I could write it. There's no Creation, no origin of life, no souls and no purpose of souls described by the Buddha because the Buddha taught "only suffering, and the way out of suffering," and a soul/self is just an illusion. Speculating about stuff that can never be proved just creates more suffering and leads nowhere.

You might find this Buddhism and God link interesting, especially the Man Creates God section.

[sabaijai]

These questions come under the category of questions which 'tend not to edification' in Sutta parlance.

[thomas3940]

"Life is Easy. Why do we make it so hard?"

Published: 8/29/2005

“Life is easy. Why do we make it so hard?”

Jon Jandai

To be given life is the ultimate gift. When we are first born we have the right to cry or laugh. When we grow up we have the freedom to choose the way we want to be. Humans were born with rights equal to every other living thing but because of our unlimited desire human life is often of less quality than most other animals.

A small bird wakes up early in the morning singing a song waking the other birds, merrily looking for food, spending a short time to get all the bugs and grain she needs to fill her small stomach, then spending the rest of her time playing, singing, and courting. She spends a few days to build her beautiful nest. She doesn’t work too much to get the food she needs everyday. Her life is easy. She has a lot of time to play and enjoy living together with the other birds.

Humans have small stomachs as birds do. Just to have enough to eat we too do not have to work a lot in one day. If we want to build a house, we can build one in a few weeks. We can then have a lot of free-time in our life to play and enjoy life together as well. Now days people choose to work very hard, at least 8 hours per day. They work like machines just to have some food to eat even though the food they eat is not good quality. They eat the old plants and animals that have been dead many months in a can or in frozen packages. They have to live in a crowded house like a termite. If they want their own house they have to spend at least one half of their life or maybe all of their life to work for that house. Life is busy and hectic all the time.

We can see only complications with no space for beauty and freedom. We create suffering for ourselves because we don’t know the purpose of life. We are blinded and our soul turns to darkness. We can’t see beauty. We can’t enjoy living. We have only fear growing in our minds everyday. We begin to distrust other people. We cannot be friends with others around us, even relatives or family members. Our lives are lonely, even though the world is full of people. Even though we have a lot of material goods and wealth we still feel like it’s not enough. Even thought other people give us love, we still don’t trust them. We are even disturbed by the rooster’s morning call and we’re proud to say in the middle of this confusion and suffering that this is development and we are civilized.

Why do humans choose to live their life in a difficult and complicated life like this? What do we receive from our hard work all our life? Why is the simple and peaceful way not attractive to people? Life is easy, why do we make it hard?

If we think we are the most clever animal in the world, why do we make our life full of bitterness and suffering more than any other animal? Why do we have to work harder than other animals? Why do we make our lives so boring? Why don’t we have time for our kids and family or even time for ourselves? These are the instincts of all life. In 24 hours we spend more than 10 hours struggling with what we call work or said nicely, “making a living”. We spend on average less than 8 hours sleeping and 2.5 hours a day eating, maybe .5-1 hour bathing/dressing. This leaves 3 hours left for ourselves and our family in our day. Mostly we spend this time intoxicating ourselves with entertainment such as drinking, going to parties, shopping, watching movies or watching TV. Even on our day off we love to spend the time on entertainment. We don’t see the importance of spending time with family or ourselves because we think we don’t have time. So we are not different from machines or robots because we have lost our heart and soul.

Our kids are like our pets. We take care of them enough to feed them and keep them safe but we neglect to think about their mind and soul. Kids want to be loved and cared for and to feel close to their parents but we think it’s a burden so we push them away by sending them to pre-school. Then we appease ourselves by telling ourselves we’ve done the best by them by giving them good food and expensive schooling so we can have more time to give to working and we can tell ourselves that we work for our kids. But we don’t know if the kids want what we give them or not. We assume we have given the best to them. If the kids know how to compare, they must be jealous of other animals like ducks seeing their whole family playing and looking for food together. But to be born as a human kid is so lonely. They become orphaned even though they have parents. They spend more time with strangers than their parents.

We are losing our instincts. We are destroying the system of life which our ancestors developed and lived successfully with for many thousands of years. Now we become the only animals that work this hard. Even in the past people didn’t work as hard or long as they do now except slaves and prisoners. What made people see slavery as progress or development? What is the reason people choose to live like this? Life is easy, why do we choose to make it so hard and complicated? What makes us think life has no choice when in fact we have a lot of choice?

Food for thought.... Austhaied