Long Term Hedonism and Religion

[RyanO]

I originally wrote a long post supporting the following but here is a simple version. I will elaborate if you want.

 

Right now, here are my beliefs:

 

I am agnostic about life after death (and religions in general). I think religions are mostly bullshit that confuse existential crises with the pleasure/addiction cycle. I think the most useful stance one can take is to achieve long-term hedonism on the earthly plane and assume nirvana/union with the Tao comes automatically after death. Ethics/morality exist only to to make our earthly lives better/more pleasurable.

 

Do you think this is valid? Do you follow a religion? If so, how would it respond to my beliefs?

[squib]

Hi friend, can you clarify this statement --that confuse existential crises with the pleasure/addiction cycle--

 

--I think the most useful stance one can take is to achieve long-term hedonism on the earthly plane and assume nirvana/union with the Tao comes automatically after death. Ethics/morality exist only to to make our earthly lives better/more pleasurable--

 

 

What you say above, is what most modern westerners are already doing and thinking, mostly agnostic or "maybe, maybe not". (change nirvana to "heaven or salvation" or even "something better")

 

Your point of view as expressed here is entirely conventional, even reasonable.

 

Do you want to be talked out of it? it wont happen. Unless you are playing at "devils advocate" you are stuck with this viewpoint like most of our fellow men.

 

I hope the after life works out that way, but most sages think The Tibetan Book of The Dead vision is most accurate ( or similar- bardo-sleep-re birth) into the same or similar rather shitty (for most people) state.

[RyanO]

Interesting points.

 

First, I do not want to be 'talked out of' anything. I have done a lot of independent thinking and am merely curious as to what others have to say.

 

Second, while I do agree that many are at their core agnostic, I don't think most Westerners fit the bill as you describe. Many are 'insurance' believers, as in they become religious on their death bed because of their fear of death. Also, most would not be what I would categorize as true long term hedonists, in the sense that they are not calculating or are concerned with what would truly give them the most happiness/pleasure. Many people are apathetic and lack passion/imagination.

 

My point about existential crises vs pleasure/addiction is that religious people tend to take simple ideas such as the temporary nature of 'base' pleasures such as drugs and sex and expand them into theories such as the wheel of samsara one can only escape through nirvana (in the case of Buddhism), or that only God can provide lasting happiness (every other theistic religion).

 

Mostly, religions convert people because of our fear and uncertainty over death.

 

The Tibetan Book of the Dead sounds interesting. I have not read it, though I have done my fair share of lucid dreaming. From what I know of it, it sounds very much related to lucid dreaming. To be safe, maybe I'll brush up on my LD skilz, and try to let go of some attachments while I'm at it

[squib]

Thanks Ryan, I should have qualified that point a little, most people I know who are westerners are mostly agnostic or otherwise what you may call "exoteric" believers in a "religion" mostly Christianity or a touch-of-Buddhism, maybe accepting Karma or The Dalai Lama as a role model etc

 

And yes they are short term hedonists, because correct me if you think otherwise, most long term hedonists end up in the gutter, jail or wheel chairs, so most people learn a little moderation perhaps is wiser than out right debauchery after giving it something of kick in their youth perhaps

 

on your 3rd point, I disagree, the root of what is profound and useful in religious wisdom (and totally agree much is useless and less than even wise- nonsense and mythology)and what did move the wise was the observable fleeting nature of happiness, right here, some may be doing just fine but for the majority of humans and non humans, its brief and unsatisfactory. That has been an observation made by many.

 

--Mostly, religions convert people because of our fear and uncertainty over death--

 

That is correct

 

 

Interesting points.

 

First, I do not want to be 'talked out of' anything. I have done a lot of independent thinking and am merely curious as to what others have to say.

 

Second, while I do agree that many are at their core agnostic, I don't think most Westerners fit the bill as you describe. Many are 'insurance' believers, as in they become religious on their death bed because of their fear of death. Also, most would not be what I would categorize as true long term hedonists, in the sense that they are not calculating or are concerned with what would truly give them the most happiness/pleasure. Many people are apathetic and lack passion/imagination.

 

My point about existential crises vs pleasure/addiction is that religious people tend to take simple ideas such as the temporary nature of 'base' pleasures such as drugs and sex and expand them into theories such as the wheel of samsara one can only escape through nirvana (in the case of Buddhism), or that only God can provide lasting happiness (every other theistic religion).

 

Mostly, religions convert people because of our fear and uncertainty over death.

 

The Tibetan Book of the Dead sounds interesting. I have not read it, though I have done my fair share of lucid dreaming. From what I know of it, it sounds very much related to lucid dreaming. To be safe, maybe I'll brush up on my LD skilz, and try to let go of some attachments while I'm at it

[RyanO]

Gotcha. So we agree many claim to believe in their home-grown 'religion' just to reserve their ticket to paradise. We also, I assume, agree this is cowardly and fallacious thinking.

 

We also agree that most people get the hedonism thing down wrong. Granted, it does take experience to learn. True long term hedonism requires a lot of wisdom.

 

Based on your 'fleeting nature of happiness' comment I assume you're Buddhist, or sympathize with Buddhism? I'm curious as to what you're specific religious beliefs are.

 

It seems to me that a lot of discrepancy over religions is: What is the highest possible happiness? And that's a tough question.

 

Personally, I am drawn to religion/mysticism because I believe there are levels of happiness not obtainable through conventional (sex,drugs), easy means. I think meditation/internal alchemy have a lot to offer people who are agnostic about life after death. Just thinking about there being bliss beyond pleasure and pain sends shivers up my spine. But those shivers are felt in my body. When I contemplate the emptiness of phenomena, I feel pleasure in my stomach. Same when I do the Inner Smile.

 

I think religious practice should be done because it makes one happier here and now, not because it'll make them happier when they die. That is my point.

 

What good is realizing the fleeting nature of happiness if it doesn't make you happy?

[squib]

---We also agree that most people get the hedonism thing down wrong. Granted, it does take experience to learn. True long term hedonism requires a lot of wisdom---

 

Ryan, can you expand on this point, what exactly are you pointing to with the term "long term hedonism". Do you mean an "esoteric" or internal bodily pleasure mechanism, or state, rather than external stimulants ?

 

 

 

 

 

Gotcha. So we agree many claim to believe in their home-grown 'religion' just to reserve their ticket to paradise. We also, I assume, agree this is cowardly and fallacious thinking.

 

We also agree that most people get the hedonism thing down wrong. Granted, it does take experience to learn. True long term hedonism requires a lot of wisdom.

 

Based on your 'fleeting nature of happiness' comment I assume you're Buddhist, or sympathize with Buddhism? I'm curious as to what you're specific religious beliefs are.

 

It seems to me that a lot of discrepancy over religions is: What is the highest possible happiness? And that's a tough question.

 

Personally, I am drawn to religion/mysticism because I believe there are levels of happiness not obtainable through conventional (sex,drugs), easy means. I think meditation/internal alchemy have a lot to offer people who are agnostic about life after death. Just thinking about there being bliss beyond pleasure and pain sends shivers up my spine. But those shivers are felt in my body. When I contemplate the emptiness of phenomena, I feel pleasure in my stomach. Same when I do the Inner Smile.

 

I think religious practice should be done because it makes one happier here and now, not because it'll make them happier when they die. That is my point.

 

What good is realizing the fleeting nature of happiness if it doesn't make you happy?

[squib]

We also, I assume, agree this is cowardly and fallacious thinking.

 

No I tend to allow people to make this choice with no problem or superiority about it, people make these choices because they (we) feel it is necessary. If a person has a greater sensitivity or urge to move beyond this they may be able to do so.

 

Based on your 'fleeting nature of happiness' comment I assume you're Buddhist, or sympathize with Buddhism?

 

No I find very little that moves me in conventional Buddhism, the cessation of desire, seems to be the fire-hose method. Put-it-out ! put-it-out!-- before it becomes action. I understand why this compassionate means and way is taught and respect those who practice.

 

Personally, I am drawn to religion/mysticism because I believe there are levels of happiness not obtainable through conventional (sex,drugs), easy means. I think meditation/internal alchemy have a lot to offer people who are agnostic about life after death. Just thinking about there being bliss beyond pleasure and pain sends shivers up my spine. But those shivers are felt in my body. When I contemplate the emptiness of phenomena, I feel pleasure in my stomach. Same when I do the Inner Smile

 

I guess this is what you are pointing to, the possibility is more in line with Taoism with its concept of an "immortal body" of bliss, you may be interested to know (or already do know) that some aspirants of Kundalini Yoga, one sect in particular aspire to this also, very similar, except they use different concepts but definitely transmutation of sex energy. This is more about descending into bodily life, or bodily immortalization rather than the absolute absence of body found in pure Buddhism and Advaita.

 

In those schools the body is almost ignored or at least given little attention, whereas in the yoga's and Taoist practice it is very much taken into account. In many ways my heart belongs there as well

 

However, there are 2 things here, evolutionary and esoteric growth (via yoga's and Taoist practice, among others) and the absolute Transcendental principal. Or you could say spiritual (esoteric) and Transcendental, oddly the greatest of the Sages say one does not necessarily lead to the other but I believe both are necessary ( so if you ask what I believe, I say both are absolutely necessary but the Absolute Transcendental principal is senior, always.)

[Gerard]

I think religions are mostly bullshit that confuse existential crises with the pleasure/addiction cycle. I think the most useful stance one can take is to achieve long-term hedonism on the earthly plane and assume nirvana/union with the Tao comes automatically after death. Do you think this is valid? Do you follow a religion? If so, how would it respond to my beliefs?

 

There are several problems that would be left without an answer with that method:

 

1. Karma

2. Spiritual evolution that requires daily and dedicated practice

3. Ability of shen/spirit/original consciouness to endure after death without the need of rebirth

 

I personally do follow two spiritual methods: Buddhism and Taoism.

 

 

...I have done a lot of independent thinking and am merely curious as to what others have to say.

 

This is the problem, trying to approach eastern spirituality with an inquisitive mind. It doesn't work, you will be facing the cul-de-sac syndrome.

 

 

Mostly, religions convert people because of our fear and uncertainty over death...

 

Not everyone is scared of death. I am more scared of rebirth and dukkha (suffering); having to start all over again.

 

 

Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

What you refer to as 'hedonism', i live as the 'Bohemian' philosophy.. hedonism tends to codify or organize itself, bohemian philosophy, like Taoist philosophy, is more focused on the 'nature of mankind'.. it is simply willing to acknowledge humanity's fullness, humanity's 'secret desires'.. Bohemians live 'for the moment', whatever that moment may be.. they tend to avoid conventional roles in society, as that would confine their spirit, confine 'who they are'.. Hedonists tend to focus more narrowly on specific themes..

 

My research leaves me with the opinion that the early Taoists, those whose lifestyles and contributions inspired Taoist philosophy, were very much the models for Bohemian philosophies.. a common theme between Taoist philosophy and Bohemian philosophy is the rejection of a structured existence, a social role to be played-out..

 

How does this relate to humanity's spiritual quest? I think RyanO is close:

I think the most useful stance one can take is to achieve long-term hedonism on the earthly plane and assume nirvana/union with the Tao comes automatically after death. Ethics/morality exist only to to make our earthly lives better/more pleasurable.

Where the above quote considers Hedonism as a 'path', i would suggest that the 'path' is only revealed as your next step falls upon it.. i think the 'automatically upon death' perspective is spot-on.. and, ethics/morality are in-place to offer a 'balance' of these opportunities to the masses, but.. in that 'balance', the experiences are usually diminished, because those that have the greatest opportunity relinquish a bit in favor of those that have less of those opportunities.. the greatest opportunities go by without full realization due to the equality of morals and ethics.. and, those benefiting from this sharing are often unable to understand the or appreciate the gift...

 

Be well..

[Eric23]

It seems in reading your posts that you are implying that "the divine" (however you name it) is somewhere out there. That the divine is outside of our body and that through the mechanism of religion we somehow placate the divine and are therefore saved or achieve bliss in the next stage of our existence. My personal view that is slowly evolving is that "the divine" is within us and that we need to get out of our own way to realize the divine's presence.

 

Not trying to change anyone's opinions or beliefs just throwing it out there to give a slightly different perspective.

[RyanO]

Cool responses. I'll try to respond to most of your important points. Bear with me, I know religion is a touchy subject!

 

squib: Sorry didn't mean to put words in your mouth! I think it's easy to see that happiness is what we're after, but harder to define it. That's we're all the discrepancies come in. In my experience, real happiness is felt as a} pleasure in the body and b} the sense that you are doing the 'right' or virtuous thing (which I think works because it ultimately leads to satisfaction experiences in the body). It's this b point that causes all the variation. Since I'm not convinced of the whole immortal/spirit body thing, my reason for doing 'spiritual' work is different.

 

dc: I can understand how from a religious perspective, I have erred, especially in not having a teacher (ie have done independent thinking). But from my perspective, I am wary of any authority on spiritual matters (yeah, I've read a lot of J. Krishnamurti). I think religions offer comfort for our uncertainties about existence, not just death. You're three problems are assumptions from your religious perspective which I don't have.

 

T: Love it. Very interesting. Sounds like the Bohemian way would be great especially for a creative personality. My use of the word 'hedonism' is used in the broadest sense possible, mostly to differentiate seeking the highest possible happiness here and now vs. putting it off for the afterlife.

 

E: I'm not sure if you were responding to me, but it might have been because of my "union with Tao comes after death" comment. That was merely to say that I don't think we should be concerned about liberation. Actually, I'm close to being pantheist so I agree with you. What you are saying is exactly the problem that I have with many religions.

 

Peace!

[RyanO]

[Gerard]

dc: I can understand how from a religious perspective, I have erred, especially in not having a teacher (ie have done independent thinking). But from my perspective, I am wary of any authority on spiritual matters (yeah, I've read a lot of J. Krishnamurti). I think religions offer comfort for our uncertainties about existence, not just death. You're three problems are assumptions from your religious perspective which I don't have.

 

Well I respect your point of view, but to me my religious practice as you say is based on a hands-on approach to the matter, which is daily meditation and martial arts practice; therefore, I wouldn't call my experience religious as it is based on a blind faith on some sort of belief. I don't believe of anything until I experience it first because it could lead the mind to a dead end road (as I already stated), or worse quit the religious practice altogether since most religions expect blind faith and non-questioning from their followers.

 

 

Edited: typo.

Edited February 24, 2010 by durkhrod chogori

[squib]

Hi Ryan, you may find aomeone who knows their Buddhist logic to address your point, though my view of pure Buddhist logic is that it is desire itself, that is seen as the root problem. Which is the search for pleasure (that's any desire including the desire for more subtle or expanded pleasures)

 

As I pointed out earlier most of the (genuine) Wise gave the search for pleasure and attainments a good kicking, and found that all conditional effects (even those attained by meditation and spiritual practice) were at best temporary (or all that is less than enlightenment)

 

It is not really a moral issue ( right or wrong) it's whether it is true or not. Is it true ? Is there any real utopia, gross or subtle, an endless unbroken pleasured state ? -- *Or even a reasonable state of more or less -ok conditions+ -- [ note yes there is it's called middle class ( or higher) living]

 

"Winters cold always follows summers heat" is a famed quote (or it may be the other way around) none the less, it is evident to any realist that it will never be utopia here, no matter how evolved the planet gets with pleasurable technology and so forth- there will always be something lacking, because that is the nature of that which is "conditonal" --it changes-- or as a teacher (jokingly) once put it, "we search for what is eternal, in what is temporal".

Edited February 24, 2010 by squib

[RyanO]

dc: I appreciate the value you place on experiential truths, and didn't mean to imply that you had 'blind faith.' It is certainly possible that you have experienced truths that I haven't. But is difficult for me to believe that someone understands something of what happens when we die.

 

squib: I think we're getting closer here, let me see if I can further clarify...

 

I think there is a difference between existential seeking and 'natural' seeking. Existentially, seeking 'meaning' in pleasure is a dead end, for the reasons you set forth.

 

But that does not mean as corporeal beings it is necessary to become ascetic. Rather, the goal would be to follow the middle way, enjoy pleasures as they come, and enjoy the peace in between. Work can be done to make pleasurable experiences more pleasurable and painful experiences less painful. It is natural for our bodies to seek pleasure. Done right, it encourages health and well being.

 

"Winter cold always follows summer heat", yes, but not on the equator

 

We might not be in that much disagreement. I understand what you're saying. I'm just suggesting that there might not be anything metaphysical about it, (something akin to the book, "Buddhism Without Beliefs" http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564 ), and also that we seek pleasure naturally and thats ok. We just have to learn to take control of the reins.

 

Edit: Fixed link.

Edited February 24, 2010 by RyanO

[RyanO]

Also, your point that “we search for what is eternal, in what is temporal” is important to address.

 

The Christian way of putting it is that we have a God-shaped hole in our hearts. C.S. Lewis said that our problem is not that we want too much, it’s that we DON’T want ENOUGH.

 

This is part of the human condition and is the entire reason religion exists in the first place. It is a testament to the power and imagination of the human spirit. It is spiritual longing.

 

The word ‘hedonism’ does have a connotation of forsaking this longing in favor of temporal, earthly delights. However, I do not think the two have to be mutually exclusive. Many religions do.

 

I'm attempting to reframe the word ‘hedonism’ in its truest, most honest sense. Attaining the goals of most religions would be extremely pleasurable. Even Buddhism, as it claims that being trapped in the wheel of pleasure and pain leads to despair. That doesn't sound very pleasurable In that case, the ultimate pleasure would be nirvana.

 

Edit: typo.

Edited February 24, 2010 by RyanO

[squib]

Winter cold always follows summer heat", yes, but not on the equator

will pay that!

 

 

For sure, I see the pure Buddhist method as a compassionate one. Not long ago a Tibetan Lama visiting said in public, he was unsure if reincarnation was true or not, and was not concerned about it, he said belief was not necessary, I thought that was already the case in Buddhism?

 

One thing I like about Taoism, at least how it is often presented, is it is life positive and sex positive, these are not seen as problems It takes real account of the bodily condition, as does some of the yoga schools. It is a love of the incarnate life force.

[RyanO]

For sure, I see the pure Buddhist method as a compassionate one. Not long ago a Tibetan Lama visiting said in public, he was unsure if reincarnation was true or not, and was not concerned about it, he said belief was not necessary, I thought that was already the case in Buddhism?

 

Wow cool! Any sources for that?

 

One thing I like about Taoism, at least how it is often presented, is it is life positive and sex positive, these are not seen as problems It takes real account of the bodily condition, as does some of the yoga schools. It is a love of the incarnate life force.

 

Totally

[squib]

No, the man I mentioned was just speaking at a public event, it caught my attention, I am sure someone here would know more about than me.

 

Here is a quote from the internet, it seems quite common

 

No belief in reincarnation is necessary.

 

As far as I can tell, Buddha himself did not teach reincarnation. He was against speculating about what happened after one dies.

 

Reincarnation is a part of Buddhist beliefs and writings, but I think they were put there after Buddha died. I'm not a scholar, so I could easily be wrong, though. I've just never found it important in my practice to worry about reincarnation

[Trogdorf]

[RyanO]

[RyanO]

 

 

Hence: "I hate these debates"... They really create more problems than they solve…

Just let it be, I say...

 

 

 

 

However, I do disagree with this. Some people, it is true, cannot be reasoned with. But there are people who would benefit from debate, and learn something. Sometimes it does tire me out. Mostly, I enjoy it. I think I have something to offer in religious debate, and relish learning new things.

 

To that end :

 

The issue is that religious experiences are both powerful and subjective. The more objective a topic, the easier it is too communicate. That's the beauty of science. I think science has a lot to offer religion. The problem is that it takes a long time, requires funding, and has limits.

 

Also, the problem with the 'experiment/ see it for yourself' teaching you hear some of the more sensible spiritual people say is that you have to think it's worthwhile to even try. And, it's a powerful piece of rhetoric to the point where someone might hear this and lend it more value than it would have otherwise. Believing is seeing.

 

So if I heard: "Do the Five Tibetans for three hours a day for four years and you will have perfect health and be able to shoot lighting bolts from your palm."

 

I'd say: "No way!"

 

They'd say: "Hey don't take my word for it, try it for yourself."

 

I'd wonder if it was worth it. I'd say, show me some lightning bolts first.

 

It's similar with other religions. Pascal's wager doesn't just apply to Christianity:

 

Buddhism holds that if I don't aspire to nirvana I will be trapped in a never ending cycle of rebirth. Since Buddhism is based on principles I have experienced, I am willing to grant this more credence than other religious propositions. But at what cost? It means that I will have to forsake earthly pursuits X and Y. But I love X and Y!

 

Oh, but the karma/rebirth teaching isn't really the point of Buddhism, some TIBETAN LAMAS say. Then what is? To end pain. And then we have...wait for it...Boom: Long Term Hedonism.

 

Ethics/morality, compassion for others v. selfishness is where it gets REALLY tricky.

 

Edit: Typo, some ideas.

Edited February 24, 2010 by RyanO