"Real" Happiness

[goldisheavy]

"But wait!" cried the religious man. "If I discard my religion and my illusion of happiness and fail in my search to find real happiness won't I risk the chance of being unhappy the rest of my life?"

 

To this replied the Taoist Sage, "There is always that possibility. There are no universal absolutes. There are no universal truths. All life, all things, all non-things are in constant flux."

 

And so, at this point a choice needs be made. Those who wish to hold to their illusional happiness based upon their man-made religion may stop reading any further. Those who wish to continue the journey must await the next installment.

 

There are two battles or dialogs going on. Please, let's not get confused.

 

Religion as a social institution, as a hierarchical human organization, a hierarchical human power structure is at odds with the secular equivalents. That's one battle or dialog.

 

Second, and equally important is physicalism vs. non-physicalism worldview. A view of non-physicalism is a spiritual worldview. And a view of physicalism is a non-spiritual worldview.

 

Why is this important? It's important because you can be a spiritual and yet non-religious person. You can be spiritual and religious. And you can also be a physicalist and religious person. And you can be a physicalist non-religious person. There are 4 possibilities worth looking at as opposed to just 2.

 

Is social hierarchical structure necessary to alleviate suffering? My answer is no, it's not. So religion is not necessary. Furthermore, to the extent that power concentrations are undemocratic, they themselves are the source of suffering, and I am certain Karl Marx would agree with this statement. But this applies to all power concentrations and not just to religious institutions. So corporate governance is a source of suffering for most people (and pleasure for very very few at the top who enjoy the fruits of the abuse they can inflict using that undemocratic power). It applies to government to the extent that our elected representatives do not mirror people's will. And so on. In this case it makes no sense to single out religion for criticism. One should criticize all undemocratic power concentrations.

 

So then we come to physicalism vs. non-physicalism. It can be logically shown that physicalist worldview is an illusion that brings pain. Non-physicalist worldview is a true view, a non-illusory view that alleviates pain. Now why would you choose a worldview with all the drawbacks and none of the benefits? It makes no sense. The only way you would end up being a physicalist is if you never allowed yourself to seriously question it.

 

All physicalists are idiots. Period. There is absolutely no apology for physicalism, no defense.

[Marblehead]

Hi GiH,

 

Well, of course, I totally disagree with your conclusion.

 

Religion as a social institution, as a hierarchical human organization, a hierarchical human power structure is at odds with the secular equivalents. That's one battle or dialog.

 

I agree but I don't consider it a battle - it is simply a fact but even so it does not apply to the story.

 

Second, and equally important is physicalism vs. non-physicalism worldview. A view of non-physicalism is a spiritual worldview. And a view of physicalism is a non-spiritual worldview.

 

I totally disagree with this. First, no one can be totally non-physicalist. We have a body that needs being attended to. Even the most spiritual people need to pee and poop. However, a physicalist can be totally non-spiritual. Ask any Atheist. But, there are many physicalists who are also spiritualists. North American Natives is a perfect example.

 

Why is this important? It's important because you can be a spiritual and yet non-religious person. You can be spiritual and religious. And you can also be a physicalist and religious person. And you can be a physicalist non-religious person. There are 4 possibilities worth looking at as opposed to just 2.

 

Yes, it is possible to be non-religious but a spiritualist. NA's are one example. I am another example. Yes, one can be religious and spiritual. And I agree with the other two as well.

 

Is social hierarchical structure necessary to alleviate suffering? My answer is no, it's not. So religion is not necessary. Furthermore, to the extent that power concentrations are undemocratic, they themselves are the source of suffering, and I am certain Karl Marx would agree with this statement. But this applies to all power concentrations and not just to religious institutions. So corporate governance is a source of suffering for most people (and pleasure for very very few at the top who enjoy the fruits of the abuse they can inflict using that undemocratic power). It applies to government to the extent that our elected representatives do not mirror people's will. And so on. In this case it makes no sense to single out religion for criticism. One should criticize all undemocratic power concentrations.

 

Your train derailed here, crashed and burned. We are not talking about suffering, governments or social fairness.

 

So then we come to physicalism vs. non-physicalism. It can be logically shown that physicalist worldview is an illusion that brings pain. Non-physicalist worldview is a true view, a non-illusory view that alleviates pain. Now why would you choose a worldview with all the drawbacks and none of the benefits? It makes no sense. The only way you would end up being a physicalist is if you never allowed yourself to seriously question it.

 

What? You have to be joking! There is no logic in what you have said here. Pain is a reality of life. Don't you even try to tell me that you have never experienced pain. How can physical reality be an illusion? The only way you could support such an opinion would be if you believed you didn't exist. And that is such a rediculous thought that it is not even worthy of consideration.

 

Why would anyone want to think that they do not exist? That is just plain stupid. I'm sorry but that's just so obvious to me.

 

It is the person who fully acknowledges that they exist and all other manifestations exist as well who are capable of understanding the processes of nature and learning how to live in this manifestation with a minimum occasions for sadness (sadness being the opposite of happiness).

 

So it is the ones who do not attend to their manifest existence who are constantly suffering and are constantly trying to find ways to eliminate the suffering they have themselves created.

 

But then there are those who believe that by hiding from reality they can eliminate suffering but all they do is create more suffering for themselves because they never find an escape from reality so many of them just kill themselves. Sad.

 

All physicalists are idiots. Period. There is absolutely no apology for physicalism, no defense.

 

And so it is those who are not physicalists who are the idiots. Period. There is no excuse for thinking that you do not exist. That is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. Anyone who believes they don't exist is truely a lost soul and they will never find peace or happiness.

 

There is no apology for thinking that you are above and beyond the effects of nature. That is not only blindness of sight and hearing but blindness of the mind as well.

 

So if you wish to seek happiness the first thing one must do is admit that they exist. If you don't exist it really doesn't matter - actually nothing should matter - go find a hole to hide and die in.

 

Meanwhile we physicalists will continue our search for "real" happiness.

 

Peace & Love!

[Bob Tan]

Yes, "real happiness" can be achieved by tearing down all barriers of suffering and disentangling ourselves from the sorrow and misery. Having extricated ourselves from self-delusions, we will naturally ascend to realms of perfect bliss.

 

Be happy!

 

Miaoshan

Edited October 18, 2009 by Bob Tan

[Tao99]

happiness is my 2 front teeth

Edited October 21, 2009 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

I love you guys! You make me laugh.

 

BTW Only the ones who were left behind are suffering. I think they were all Buddhists and Christians. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

I totally disagree with this. First, no one can be totally non-physicalist. We have a body that needs being attended to. Even the most spiritual people need to pee and poop.

 

Marble, since I've had some exchanges with you already, I have come to believe that you neither understand nor even want to understand non-physicalism. Therefore I will say that your statement above is nonsense, but I am not going to bother to justify it, as I understand you already made up your mind and don't give a rats ass.

 

However, a physicalist can be totally non-spiritual.

 

Impossible. The best physicalists can manage is to ignore their reliance on spiritual ideas. It's nothing more than a pretense. If you confront physicalists about feelings or dreams, they won't deny those, but they will give a cop-out excuse "oh it's just brain chemicals dancing... there are no real feelings, just the signals in the brain." Basically they will deny their own experience in preference to their conceptual model, which is completely faith-based, as there is no way to receive evidence of substance, since all you have are the senses, and deducing substance from just sense-appearances is utterly impossible -- thus substance is always an assumption, a faith. Substance is like the Christian God. You take it on faith as a physicalists, because there is no evidence of something other than insubstantial sense-appearances.

 

Ask any Atheist. But, there are many physicalists who are also spiritualists. North American Natives is a perfect example.

 

Buddhists are non-physicalist atheists. Atheism does not imply physicalism. Atheism means you do not believe in a deity, that's all. Buddhists do not believe in a deity, but Buddhists also do not believe in substance. If you believe in substance, you're not a Buddhist.

 

How can physical reality be an illusion? The only way you could support such an opinion would be if you believed you didn't exist.

 

I won't even dignify this with an answer. Send me a PM if you ever get serious.

[Marblehead]

Marble, since I've had some exchanges with you already, I have come to believe that you neither understand nor even want to understand non-physicalism. Therefore I will say that your statement above is nonsense, but I am not going to bother to justify it, as I understand you already made up your mind and don't give a rats ass.

 

Now you are finally beginning to attain realization. I am not a Christian or a Buddhist. I don't ever want to be a Christian again and I do not want to become a Buddhist. You are right. I don't give a rat's ass about either of those two religions. In fact, I don't give a rat's ass about Taoist religion either.

 

Impossible. The best physicalists can manage is to ignore their reliance on spiritual ideas. It's nothing more than a pretense. If you confront physicalists about feelings or dreams, they won't deny those, but they will give a cop-out excuse "oh it's just brain chemicals dancing... there are no real feelings, just the signals in the brain." Basically they will deny their own experience in preference to their conceptual model, which is completely faith-based, as there is no way to receive evidence of substance, since all you have are the senses, and deducing substance from just sense-appearances is utterly impossible -- thus substance is always an assumption, a faith. Substance is like the Christian God. You take it on faith as a physicalists, because there is no evidence of something other than insubstantial sense-appearances.

 

And I must here suggest that you do not understand the true concept of a person being a physicalist. We DO NOT deny our own experiences. This is the absolute base of our beliefs. But we do not add to our experiences things that do not exist. There are no 'super' anythings. If it is not real it is not real. That's all there is to it. Substance is all there is - it has nothing to do with faith. "Faith" is not a word a physicalist would use. Substance is nothing like the Christian God. The Christian God does not exist in the eyes and mind of a physicalist. We take nothing on faith. It is always 'show and tell time'.

 

Buddhists are non-physicalist atheists. Atheism does not imply physicalism. Atheism means you do not believe in a deity, that's all. Buddhists do not believe in a deity, but Buddhists also do not believe in substance. If you believe in substance, you're not a Buddhist.

 

It should be obvious by now that I am not a Buddhist nor will I ever be a Buddhist. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it brings me great joy.

 

I won't even dignify this with an answer. Send me a PM if you ever get serious.

 

And so, I will not PM you concerning this subject because I have no interest in learning anything about the Buddhist religion. Please remember in the early days of my being a member of this forum I stated that during my search for a path to follow I read Buddhist literature and although I did see a lot of good teachings in the belief system there were too many hole in the belief system for me to be able to accept it. Therefore I put down the Buddhist literature and continued my search.

 

I am a Philosophical Taoist with a strong Neitzschian influence. That is the essence of my belief system. The processes of nature as I am able to observe them are the guides I use for conducting my life. I don't need the instructions from someone who was delusional to tell me what life and death are all about. I see it every day in the real world.

 

So it really doesn't matter to me if others find their happiness in believing in things I hold as being false beliefs. As long as they think they are happy and are not causing harm to others I think they have found happiness. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they have found 'everlasting' "real" happiness.

 

So I think it is fine if one wishes to speak about how Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, or any other faith-minded people present as what they believe is the means for finding "real" happiness but I think it is wrong to suggest that one way is better than another. In this case the ends do justify the means.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

I feel gloomy ... I came back here for more of the Rene meets the Sage story and all I get is Buddhism vs. Taoism vs. Whateverism and a collection of rat's asses (never a pretty sight!).

 

I am interested in reading what people think but not in being told what to think - or even that what I think is somehow wrong ... and so on ....

 

Marbles .... on with the story!

 

[Marblehead]

I feel gloomy ... I came back here for more of the Rene meets the Sage story and all I get is Buddhism vs. Taoism vs. Whateverism and a collection of rat's asses (never a pretty sight!).

 

I am interested in reading what people think but not in being told what to think - or even that what I think is somehow wrong ... and so on ....

 

Marbles .... on with the story!

 

 

Thanks for the reminder Apepch7.

 

I will try my best to keep this with a positive influence.

 

I will return shortly to continue the story. Let's all be Happy Face, Okay?

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

...

 

Only silence was heard while all thought about what Rene had just said.

 

The Sage rose and said, "Perhaps, Rene, Perhaps. But how can we realistically conduct this test at the moment or even in the immediate future?" "Shouldn't we first," continued the Sage, "find a way to determine if an idea that we hold to is real or just a delusion or illusion?"

 

Silence filled the air.

 

The Sage continued, "Rene, you used the process of deduction through mathematics to arrive at your famous quote, 'I think, therefore I am.' Couldn't we use the same process to determine how to distinguish between what is real and what is an illusion, a delusion, or some unfounded beleif we hold that was fed to us as we were growing up?"

 

Again silence.

 

Suddenly Rene stood and and proclaimed, "Yes! Yes! Let's do that. I knew there was a reason for asking the gardener to bring a rose and a tulip with him when he joined us."

[宁]

Idano, the rat thing was pretty funny.

Actually, the first funny sentence i ever read from gih's posts.

If you brought that into him, way to go M!

 

PS: Religion is very interesting to study because it shows you how your mind works. Your mind was made what it is before you had the chanse of stepping in and say anything about it. What we're doing now is polishing some rough edges, but deep, core structure is still there. I say structure, not essence, so there's a difference. Also, both buddhist and daoist mysticism is, if you get to know it, pretty scientific. Religion is it's public face, nothing more. The same goes for christianity. I respect your originality, and for that sake alone, i offer an un-asked for advice (therefore with very slim chanses of benefit): when looking for a source of wisdom, seek the man also, and study his life and death. It shows you what you will emulate if you walk his path. Ponder ponder.

[Marblehead]

Hi Little1,

 

Post noted but I will not speak to the subject here in this thread.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Real happiness is a cold beer, my guru on my mind and my arm wrapped around my girls waist.

 

No really...

 

I like these two answers here...

 

 

Bob Tan Posted Yesterday, 05:36 PM

 

Yes, "real happiness" can be achieved by tearing down all barriers of suffering and disentangling ourselves from the sorrow and misery. Having extricated ourselves from self-delusions, we will naturally ascend to realms of perfect bliss.

 

Be happy!

 

Miaoshan

 

And Tao99 said:

 

a Taoist responds:

Yes, "real happiness" can be achieved by building up all the medicines of inner well-being and merging ourselves with the Tao of nature and life. Having extricated ourselves as an eternal, indestructible diamond-body self, we will naturally ascend to realms of perfect serenity.

 

Edited October 18, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Yes V., they both were very good posts. But they are getting ahead of the story. Hehehe.

 

I intend on collecting all the good (in my opinion) posts that have been presented in the thread concerning 'real happiness' at the end of the story so that they can be read, considered and discussed.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes V., they both were very good posts. But they are getting ahead of the story. Hehehe.

 

I intend on collecting all the good (in my opinion) posts that have been presented in the thread concerning 'real happiness' at the end of the story so that they can be read, considered and discussed.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Oh wait... I totally didn't read the story. Ok... Now I'm going to read the story. I was selectively reading through spontaneous glimpses here and there without any goal in mind and saw these two posts and that's it.

 

I'm going to give time to this story... sounds cool!

[Apech]

Real happiness is a cold beer, my guru on my mind and my arm wrapped around my girls waste.

 

No really...

 

I like these two answers here...

 

 

I think you mean her waist - her waste could be messy.

 

[Marblehead]

I think you mean her waist - her waste could be messy.

 

 

Cracked me up!

 

I didn't notice the typo when I read it.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

I think you mean her waist - her waste could be messy.

 

 

OMG!! Thanks for that!!

[Bob Tan]

... it is wrong to suggest that one way is better than another.

 

 

For "real happiness", the Buddhists travelled to the West, the Taoists to the East, the Christians to the North, the Muslims to the South, but the Confucianists says, "I'm not travelling anywhere. I stay put in the Centre".

 

Be Happy!

 

Miaoshan

Edited October 19, 2009 by Bob Tan

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Real happiness is a cold beer, my guru on my mind and my arm wrapped around my girls waist.

 

No really...

 

I like these two answers here...

 

Really? Alcohol still figures into your idea of "real happiness"? As I've gotten clearer through my spiritual work (yes, I know you find that concept shocking!-but you really know next to nothing about me...only your projections), I find that any alcohol at all takes me away from where I enjoy being-clarity. It's not that I "shouldn't", it's just that I can feel the effect of alcohol taking me away from that clarity and presence.

 

I know that your rinpoche and the Dzogchenskis like to have a few beers after the retreat or whatever is over, and that's all convivial if one isn't attached, but to me that does not translate into a regular partaking of alcohol on a frequent basis.

 

Also, I wonder... do you eat meat or are you vegetarian? I understand that the Tibetans allow eating of meat, but of course that makes sense, since in Tibet, traditionally there isn't much plant material to be had in that stark environment. And of course, plants are life forms and possess a certain level of consciousness, but I think that the higher animals are certainly more sentient, and how can a Bodhisattva justify creating this suffering? To say that "plants suffer too, etc", is certainly evading the issue.

 

I know that the Dalai Lama eats meat even though he no longer has to. I think this is in conflict with the spirit of his teachings. How can this be reconciled?

 

Would you eat meat if you had to kill the animal itself?

Edited October 19, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I know that the Dalai Lama eats meat even though he no longer has to. I think this is in conflict with the spirit of his teachings. How can this be reconciled?

 

 

Because I think you are a mean spirited person and one of the most presumptuous people I've ever come across in my 10 years online. I am mostly not going to talk with you at all.

 

But to clear up anyone elses mis-understandings.

 

The drinking of alcohol when one is in Rigpa is considered an offering that helps Samaya breakers because Dzogchen is mostly about offering merit to other beings. It's also about going beyond one's limits and if in a high state, as Milarepa said after coming out of his meditation cave, having a sip of wine from a passing merchant I think? That one sip opened up his being and dropped many veils in perception worth more than meditating years in a cave. This is not from any normal persons state of awareness though. One by no means can have a dependency on Alcohol.

 

Eating meat in a state of Rigpa is about intermingling one's mind intention of blessing with the karmic cycle of animals because mostly animals don't have the ability to transcend their karmas on their own, we take them on through this practice and promise to be their teachers once we attain Buddhahood and we chant mantras that revolve around this intention. It's all part of the Ganachakra Puja or simply Ganapuja and is traditional Dzogchen of which Dalai Lama is a humble Master. Before Dzogchen I was a strict Vegetarian from the intention of non-violence, and now I'm an occasional meat eater from the intention of helping mind streams caught in animal karma cycles. Being a vegetarian and now an occasional meat eater both arise from the intention and feeling of compassion.

 

This is part of the ancient Dzogchen tradition of North India carried over into Tibet. These are not practices that can be undertaken by anyone without transmission of Rigpa. Unless that person is already enlightened through whatever method of course. One must feel these intentions and have some sort of subtle vision opened in order to make sense of this experientially. So, the Dalai Lama being an incarnation of Avalokateshwara eats the meat in order to make karmic connections with animal mind streams and help them into human rebirths and into the arms of the 3 jewels of the Buddha/Dharma/Sangha

 

So, I doubt that you will be able to make sense of this Songs. Sadly. Though I hope for the day that you prove me wrong.

 

If Ralis doesn't know this as well...?? I can only doubt the validity of any of his claims to be a student of ChNNR or Dzogchen. Both of you are some of the most mean spirited and presumptuous people I've ever come across on the internet. I'm sure both of you are many sided, but the only side I have seen from both of you is the backside... No matter how nice and understanding I've been... it all seems quite hopeless in the sense of having any sort of meaningful communication with either of you.

 

p.s. Also... most of my comment that you quoted above was a joke.

 

 

Would you eat meat if you had to kill the animal itself?

 

I've killed some fish before on a camp fishing trip off the bay of SF when I was about 13 or so. I felt genuine compassion and couldn't eat it. I was raised Vegetarian by my Hindu mother. If I were to be in the position of having to kill and eat meat, I would do it in the spirit of Dzogchen intention and feeling and in the spirit of the Native Americans and Bushmen.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Okay Guys. Not too much chatter, Okay? This thread is about the subject of "real happiness" (as Apepch7 reminded us all yesterday). Too many 'chatter' posts will distract from the flow of the story and force others away from making their comments concerning the subject.

 

Please? Thank you.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Okay Guys. Not too much chatter, Okay? This thread is about the subject of "real happiness" (as Apepch7 reminded us all yesterday). Too many 'chatter' posts will distract from the flow of the story and force others away from making their comments concerning the subject.

 

Please? Thank you.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Sorry marblehead.

 

Didn't want this thread to get hijacked.

[Marblehead]

Sorry marblehead.

 

Didn't want this thread to get hijacked.

 

Thanks.

 

Peace & Love!

[ngtest]

And of course, plants are life forms and possess a certain level of consciousness,

 

Plants have no awareness. It is said in Shurangama Sutra by Buddha Sakyamuni.

And you don't incarnate as a plant.

Edited October 19, 2009 by ngtest