How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[galen_burnett]

So there is an argument that happiness only exists if it has suffering as a reference point. This is a conclusion that can be arrived at if you consider that the idea of everything existing in pairs and as opposites—the idea of Yin and Yang—is fundamental to existence; in this argument, happiness and suffering (I’ll say joy and pain hereafter as they’re shorter words) are not considered to be exceptions to this rule of Yin-Yang opposites, but rather are just another manifestation of Yin and Yang—albeit the most fundamental manifestation of Yin-Yang, as what experience could ever there be in Duality without shades of joy and pain? The argument is that joy can never be separated from pain because joy and pain define each other; they are a pair of opposites, like North and South; they refer to each other to give themselves meaning; without one the other ceases to exist. If all you ever saw was the colour blue then before long you would forget entirely what the other colours were, and the idea of colours, along with the colour blue itself, would then cease to be; considering, say, the greatest joy to be the colour blue in this analogy, the greatest pain as red, and all the degrees of pain and joy in-between—‘rather pleased’, ‘fine’, ‘bit off today’, ‘pretty annoyed’, etc.—being represented by the other colours. [*I know red and blue aren’t directly opposite each other on the colour-wheel, I guess cyan and orange are really, but it suffices for this post.] What’s more, in Eastern thought itself it’s considered that opposites give rise to each other in rotation: mess gives birth to cleanliness, which then becomes messy again; night to day, to night; pressure to expansion, closing into pressure once more; and so on. In this argument it is assumed that joy and pain behave in the same way: the most perfect heaven can become a hell of tedium and constriction if you stay there for too long; and the most violent hell can be inured to and got used to with enough time, until it even becomes a place of amusement and intrigue. Also, in this argument it is assumed that any and all levels of joy—even the very highest, most ultimate, degree of it imaginable—are still just ‘joy’, that all degrees of joy are as valid as each other; there is no splitting of hairs in this argument regarding the possibility of some greatest happiness existing ‘outside the bounds’ of ‘joy’—such a notion doesn’t make any sense from this point of view. I should note here that in this argument while all degrees of joy are considered as ‘valid’, it is accepted that not all beings will gain the same degree of joy from the same stimulus: a TV soap-opera may delight some people while be anathema to others, and meditation may be enormously relaxing and revitalising for some while incredible boring and dull for others; but this point is universally agreed upon by most, I think. There is the further matter of how ‘refined’ each degree of joy (or pain) is, and this actually comes relatively close to agreeing with the concept of an ultimate happiness actually, but stops short enough to still disagree with it considerably—but it is a tangent for another time.

 

The notion of attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’ is common throughout Eastern spiritual-practices and philosophy: it can be found in yoga, in Buddhist philosophy, and in Daoism (the attainment of Dao), going by various names (I’ve cited some of them in the tags of this post). It is the notion that, with diligence etc. , a person can transcend the plane of Duality and merge with the Non-Dual, whereat awaits perfect bliss and harmony for them, which they may abide in forever after. 

 

If we accept the argument that joy and pain are essentially dualistic opposites, then how can we sever them, throw out one, keep the other and then escape into Non-Duality with it? How can we smuggle a dualistic entity—i.e. joy—into the realm of Non-Duality? Wouldn’t Non-Duality be devoid of all experience whatsoever—blanker than blank—as all experiences in existence, including all forms of joy and pain, belong to Duality? even ‘experience’ itself can be thought of as being a dualistic opposite to ‘non-experience’ (though non-experience is impossible to comprehend).

 

Rather than, say, Sahasraha (see Tantric yoga stuff) being an experience of the Non-Dual, isn’t it more apt to consider it as an experience of boundlessness, of formlessness, of unity, of mergence, of the infinite? which qualities are still within the realm of Duality, and therefore the Sahasraha experience itself could still be considered as a dualistic experience. In addition, if the happiness of Nirvana—said to be beyond the ‘illusory’ joys of Samsara—resides in the incomprehensible realm of the Non-Dual, then how can anything—including ‘illusory’ joys of Samsara—be compared to it? If it is beyond all things, how can those who tell of it liken it to anything at all, including to ‘illusory’ joy? How can they say “you know what ‘nice feelings’ are, right? Well Nirvana is ‘nice feelings’ times 100!” when Nirvana is supposed to be completely unlike anything that can be experienced in Duality, including pleasure and pain; so surely, then, there is no way to say that Nirvana is ‘nice’, as ‘nice’ is ‘dual’ and Nirvana ‘non-dual’; and yet, are we not in Eastern spiritual-practices encouraged to seek Nirvana for it being supposedly ‘nice’?

 

So how would you counter this argument and uphold the notion of attainable ‘perpetual-bliss’? Have you met anyone who claimed to have attained it? If so, what made you believe them? If that person was indeed sincere in their claim to that experience, how did that person know themselves that they were not just experiencing a very long ‘high’? Also, how could that person have been operating in Duality if they had entered Non-Duality? If you believe in it after having read or heard about it, what that you have read or heard counters this argument? If both the experience itself and any attempt to explain the experience are beyond logic—due to ‘logic’ being tethered to Duality, and ‘ultimate attainment’ residing beyond Duality in Non-Duality—then how do you know about it in the first place and how are you able to talk about it or think about it—as knowledge, thought and speech all belong to the great despot of Duality—? If it is an intuition of yours that it is real, are you really willing to surrender your whole life in an attempt to attain something based on a gut-feeling? If you deduce its existence by extrapolation of your own life experiences—spiritual ones included—how do you do so?: what about your own experiences hints at the possible attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’?

 

There is a further argument against the notion of ‘perpetual-bliss’ which concerns itself with permanence-impermanence and with beginnings and ends and ‘ultimate attainments’, and though the argument in this post touches on this—through considering how opposites continually roll and transform into one another, and through questioning the true nature of an Enlightenment experience such as Sahasraha a couple paragraphs above—it’s divergent enough to leave it out here. 

 

As an aside, I am not debating here that great spiritual-experiences exist—they certainly do—; neither am I debating the immortality of the soul nor of consciousness—it certainly is—; neither am I denying enlightenment when considered as the notion of a progression through higher and higher levels of awareness, ability and intelligence; this is just an argument against the idea of the existence and attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’.

Edited August 12, 2023 by galen_burnett

[whocoulditbe?]

A short answer from the Buddhist perspective: The dyadic pair in question is between pleasure (not exactly happiness) and suffering, which are not only dependent on each other, but really the same thing. Neither commitment to pleasure (hedonism) nor commitment to suffering (self-mortification), but rather the Middle Way, will yield bliss. Since this bliss is the product of something that transcends the dichotomy between seeking pleasure and seeking suffering, it follows that it can be equated with neither pleasure nor suffering.

 

But I think there is merit to your idea that this reasoning can become a way of "smuggling" something relative into the realm of the unconditional. The relation between suffering and pleasure is not symmetrical with respect to enlightenment. Since the distaste for suffering is original, but the distaste for pleasure is a secondary reaction to the realisation of its interdependence with suffering, the final stage of enlightenment is suspiciously reminiscent of the negation of the negation.

Edited August 12, 2023 by whocoulditbe?

[galen_burnett]

6 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

A short answer from the Buddhist perspective: The dyadic pair in question is between pleasure (not exactly happiness) and suffering, which are not only dependent on each other, but really the same thing. Neither commitment to pleasure (hedonism) nor commitment to suffering (harsh asceticism), but rather the Middle Way, will yield bliss. Since this bliss is the product of something that transcends the dichotomy between seeking pleasure and seeking suffering, it follows that it can be equated neither with pleasure or suffering.

 

But I think there is merit to your idea that this reasoning can become a way of "smuggling" something relative into the realm of the unconditional. The relation between suffering and pleasure is not symmetrical. Since the distaste for suffering is original, but the distaste for pleasure is a secondary reaction to the realisation of its interdependence with suffering, the final stage of enlightenment is suspiciously reminiscent of the negation of the negation.

Cool! Thanks for that, that sounds like pretty deep Buddhist philosophy, and I’ve learned something new there. 

 

Well, I guess the argument in the post and the Buddhist perspective disagree on the definition of ‘happiness’, and so that’s where the main discussion of the post ends, which is fine! Buddhists consider the ultimate bliss of enlightenment as the ‘true happiness’ and as removed from what a layman would otherwise consider ‘happiness’ or ‘joy’ or ‘pleasure’; whereas the definition for ‘happiness’ in the proposed argument has no such parameters, other than it being defined by pain.

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

So there is an argument that happiness only exists if it has suffering as a reference point. This is a conclusion that can be arrived at if you consider that the idea of everything existing in pairs and as opposites—the idea of Yin and Yang—is fundamental to existence; in this argument, happiness and suffering (I’ll say joy and pain hereafter as they’re shorter words) are not considered to be exceptions to this rule of Yin-Yang opposites, but rather are just another manifestation of Yin and Yang—albeit the most fundamental manifestation of Yin-Yang, as what experience could ever there be in Duality without shades of joy and pain? The argument is that joy can never be separated from pain because joy and pain define each other; they are a pair of opposites, like North and South; they refer to each other to give themselves meaning; without one the other ceases to exist. If all you ever saw was the colour blue then before long you would forget entirely what the other colours were, and the idea of colours, along with the colour blue itself, would then cease to be; considering, say, the greatest joy to be the colour blue in this analogy, the greatest pain as red, and all the degrees of pain and joy in-between—‘rather pleased’, ‘fine’, ‘bit off today’, ‘pretty annoyed’, etc.—being represented by the other colours. [*I know red and blue aren’t directly opposite each other on the colour-wheel, I guess cyan and orange are really, but it suffices for this post.] What’s more, in Eastern thought itself it’s considered that opposites give rise to each other in rotation: mess gives birth to cleanliness, which then becomes messy again; night to day, to night; pressure to expansion, closing into pressure once more; and so on. In this argument it is assumed that joy and pain behave in the same way: the most perfect heaven can become a hell of tedium and constriction if you stay there for too long; and the most violent hell can be inured to and got used to with enough time, until it even becomes a place of amusement and intrigue. Also, in this argument it is assumed that any and all levels of joy—even the very highest, most ultimate, degree of it imaginable—are still just ‘joy’, that all degrees of joy are as valid as each other; there is no splitting of hairs in this argument regarding the possibility of some greatest happiness existing ‘outside the bounds’ of ‘joy’—such a notion doesn’t make any sense from this point of view. I should note here that in this argument while all degrees of joy are considered as ‘valid’, it is accepted that not all beings will gain the same degree of joy from the same stimulus: a TV soap-opera may delight some people while be anathema to others, and meditation may be enormously relaxing and revitalising for some while incredible boring and dull for others; but this point is universally agreed upon by most, I think. There is the further matter of how ‘refined’ each degree of joy (or pain) is, and this actually comes relatively close to agreeing with the concept of an ultimate happiness actually, but stops short enough to still disagree with it considerably—but it is a tangent for another time.

 

The notion of attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’ is common throughout Eastern spiritual-practices and philosophy: it can be found in yoga, in Buddhist philosophy, and in Daoism (the attainment of Dao), going by various names (I’ve cited some of them in the tags of this post). It is the notion that, with diligence etc. , a person can transcend the plane of Duality and merge with the Non-Dual, whereat awaits perfect bliss and harmony for them, which they may abide in forever after. 

 

If we accept the argument that joy and pain are essentially dualistic opposites, then how can we sever them, throw out one, keep the other and then escape into Non-Duality with it? How can we smuggle a dualistic entity—i.e. joy—into the realm of Non-Duality? Wouldn’t Non-Duality be devoid of all experience whatsoever—blanker than blank—as all experiences in existence, including all forms of joy and pain, belong to Duality? even ‘experience’ itself can be thought of as being a dualistic opposite to ‘non-experience’ (though non-experience is impossible to comprehend).

 

Rather than, say, Sahasraha (see Tantric yoga stuff) being an experience of the Non-Dual, isn’t it more apt to consider it as an experience of boundlessness, of formlessness, of unity, of mergence, of the infinite? which qualities are still within the realm of Duality, and therefore the Sahasraha experience itself could still be considered as a dualistic experience. In addition, if the happiness of Nirvana—said to be beyond the ‘illusory’ joys of Samsara—resides in the incomprehensible realm of the Non-Dual, then how can anything—including ‘illusory’ joys of Samsara—be compared to it? If it is beyond all things, how can those who tell of it liken it to anything at all, including to ‘illusory’ joy? How can they say “you know what ‘nice feelings’ are, right? Well Nirvana is ‘nice feelings’ times 100!” when Nirvana is supposed to be completely unlike anything that can be experienced in Duality, including pleasure and pain; so surely, then, there is no way to say that Nirvana is ‘nice’, as ‘nice’ is ‘dual’ and Nirvana ‘non-dual’; and yet, are we not in Eastern spiritual-practices encouraged to seek Nirvana for it being supposedly ‘nice’?

 

So how would you counter this argument and uphold the notion of attainable ‘perpetual-bliss’? Have you met anyone who claimed to have attained it? If so, what made you believe them? If that person was indeed sincere in their claim to that experience, how did that person know themselves that they were not just experiencing a very long ‘high’? Also, how could that person have been operating in Duality if they had entered Non-Duality? If you believe in it after having read or heard about it, what that you have read or heard counters this argument? If both the experience itself and any attempt to explain the experience are beyond logic—due to ‘logic’ being tethered to Duality, and ‘ultimate attainment’ residing beyond Duality in Non-Duality—then how do you know about it in the first place and how are you able to talk about it or think about it—as knowledge, thought and speech all belong to the great despot of Duality—? If it is an intuition of yours that it is real, are you really willing to surrender your whole life in an attempt to attain something based on a gut-feeling? If you deduce its existence by extrapolation of your own life experiences—spiritual ones included—how do you do so?: what about your own experiences hints at the possible attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’?

 

There is a further argument against the notion of ‘perpetual-bliss’ which concerns itself with permanence-impermanence and with beginnings and ends and ‘ultimate attainments’, and though the argument in this post touches on this—through considering how opposites continually roll and transform into one another, and through questioning the true nature of an Enlightenment experience such as Sahasraha a couple paragraphs above—it’s divergent enough to leave it out here. 

 

As an aside, I am not debating here that great spiritual-experiences exist—they certainly do—; neither am I debating the immortality of the soul nor of consciousness—it certainly is—; neither am I denying enlightenment when considered as the notion of a progression through higher and higher levels of awareness, ability and intelligence; this is just an argument against the idea of the existence and attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’.

 

Interesting post .

 

For me ; ' hermetically  / magically '   'bliss' is a  third state , a pendant to or an origin of the other two states , not one of the states in duality with the other . For example , not  'Bliss' opposed to suffering  but    a tripartite  arrangement

 

         ecstasy

 

thought      feeling

 

Its hard to explain , from a person perspective I   'suffer from '  (   )  prolonged bouts of eudamonia  within this  , I might be up or down ,  feeling great  or not ,   at ease or in physical pain .  But it doesnt effect the 'inner bliss' .

 

Its sorta a way or process of 'getting above'  things . We can also use the planets to explain , the inner ones, the 'personal planets , those that make up the triple arrangement of the psyche (positioned around the Moon , the Unconscious , and linked to the Sun , the Ego)  - the base line of this pyramid is the Mars / Venus polarity but the apex is Mercury , that force that moves 'between the worlds' (from that dualistic base line of 'the extremes of one thing ' ) to the higher realm .

 

Total and forever , eternal bliss state ?  Nah .  Afterlife doesnt work like that , I won't go into a dissertation on it here , but I think your post contains a good set of observations as to why this  can not be  so  .

[Mark Foote]

14 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

 

 

... I guess the argument in the post and the Buddhist perspective disagree on the definition of ‘happiness’, and so that’s where the main discussion of the post ends, which is fine! Buddhists consider the ultimate bliss of enlightenment as the ‘true happiness’ and as removed from what a layman would otherwise consider ‘happiness’ or ‘joy’ or ‘pleasure’; whereas the definition for ‘happiness’ in the proposed argument has no such parameters, other than it being defined by pain.
 

I'm quoting the above, so as not to repeat your original post.  

Suffering is an element of the chain of dependent causation, as here:

 

That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.

 

Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.

 

But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.

(SN II 65, Pali Text Society SN Vol II pg 45)

 

At the same time, Gautama summarizes suffering as "the five groups of grasping" (after self):

 

Birth is anguish, old age and decay, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation, and despair are ill. Not to get what one desires is ill. In short, the five groups based on grasping are ill (suffering).
 

(AN I 176, Pali Text Society Vol I pg 160, parenthetical added)

 

 

Pain's not really listed, but I think you could contrast happiness with suffering.  To Gautama, suffering was grasping after a sense of self in connection with the body, the feelings, the mind, the habitual tendencies, or the mental state.
 

About happiness, Gautama said:

 

I know that while my father, the Sakyan, was ploughing, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, aloof from pleasures of the senses, aloof from unskilled states of mind, I entered on the first meditation, which is accompanied by initial thought and discursive thought, is born of aloofness, and is rapturous and joyful, and while abiding therein, I thought: ‘Now could this be a way to awakening?’ Then, following on my mindfulness, Aggivissana, there was the consciousness: This is itself the Way to awakening. This occurred to me, Aggivissana: ‘Now, am I afraid of that happiness which is happiness apart from sense-pleasures, apart from unskilled states of mind?’ This occurred to me…: I am not afraid of that happiness which is happiness apart from sense-pleasures, apart from unskilled states of mind.’
 

(MN 1 246-247, Vol I pg 301)

 

 

Whatever happiness, whatever joy, Ananda, arises in consequence of these five strands of sense-pleasures, it is called happiness in sense-pleasures.
 

Whoever, Ananda, should speak thus: ‘This is the highest happiness and joy that creatures experience’—this I cannot allow on [their] part. What is the reason for this? There is, Ananda, another happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness. And what, Ananda, is this other happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness? Here, Ananda, a [person], aloof from pleasures of the senses, aloof from unskilled states of mind, enters and abides in the first meditation that is accompanied by initial thought and discursive thought, is born of aloofness and is rapturous and joyful. This, Ananda, is the other happiness that is more excellent and exquisite than that happiness.

 

Whoever, Ananda, should speak thus: ‘This [the first meditative state] is the highest happiness and joy that creatures experience’–this I cannot allow on [their] part. What is the reason for this? There is, Ananda, another happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness. And what, Ananda, is this other happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness?

Here, Ananda, [an individual], by allaying initial and discursive thought, [their] mind inwardly tranquillised and fixed on one point, enters and abides in the second meditation which is devoid of initial and discursive thought, is born of concentration, and is rapturous and joyful. This, Ananda, is the other happiness that is more excellent and joyful than that happiness.
 

Whoever, Ananda, should speak thus… And what, Ananda, is this other happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness? Here, Ananda, [an individual], by the fading out of rapture, abides with equanimity, attentive and clearly conscious, and [they] experience in [their] person that happiness of which the [noble ones] say: ‘Joyful lives [the one] who has equanimity and is mindful’. And entering on the third meditation [they] abide in it. This, Ananda, is the other happiness that is more excellent and exquisite than that happiness.
 

Whoever, Ananda, should speak thus… And what, Ananda is the other happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness? Here, Ananda, [an individual], by getting rid of happiness and by getting rid of anguish, by the going down of [their] former pleasures and sorrows, enters and abides in the fourth meditation which has neither anguish nor happiness, and which is entirely purified by equanimity and mindfulness. This, Ananda, is the other happiness that is more excellent and exquisite than that happiness.

 

“Whoever, Ananda, should speak thus: ‘This [the fourth meditative state] is the highest happiness and joy that creatures experience’-this I cannot allow on [their] part. What is the reason for this? There is, Ananda, another happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness. And what, Ananda, is this other happiness more excellent and exquisite than that happiness?

Here, Ananda, a [person], by wholly transcending perceptions of material shapes, by the going down of perceptions due to sensory impressions, by not attending to perceptions of difference, thinking: “Ether is unending’, enters and abides in the plane of infinite ether. This, Ananda, is the other happiness that is more excellent and exquisite than that happiness.

…[a person], by wholly transcending the plane of infinite ether and thinking: ‘Consciousness is unending’, enters and abides in the plane of infinite consciousness… …[a person], by wholly transcending the plane of infinite consciousness, and thinking: ‘There is no thing’. enters and abides in the plane of no-thing… …[a person]. by wholly transcending the plane of no-thing, enters and abides in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
 

…[a person], by wholly transcending the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. enters and abides in the stopping of perceiving and feeling. This, Ananda, is the other happiness that is more excellent and exquisite than that happiness.”|

… the situation occurs, Ananda, when wanderers belonging to other sects may speak thus: ‘The recluse (Gautama) speaks of the stopping of perceiving and feeling, and lays down that this belongs to happiness. Now what is this, now how is this?’ Ananda, wanderers belonging to other sects who speak thus should be spoken to thus: ‘Your reverences, (Gautama) does not lay down that it is only pleasant feeling that belongs to happiness; for, your reverences, the Tathagatha (the “Thus-Gone One”, the Buddha) lays down that whenever, wherever, whatever happiness is found it belongs to happiness.

 

(MN I 398-400, Vol II pg 67-69)

 

Yes, he saw you coming, 2500 years ago:  "whenever, wherever, whatever happiness is found it belongs to happiness."

There's a duplication of "happiness" in the description of the fourth concentration, above.  He says happiness ceases, at the same time he says the fourth concentration has a happiness more excellent than the third concentration.  More precisely, what ceases in the fourth concentration is happiness apart from equanimity (with respect to the multiplicity of the senses)(SN V 215, Pali Text Society V pg 189-190).

 

The attainment of "the cessation of perceiving and feeling" is associated with Gautama's insight into dependent causation, which insight is regarded as the substance of his enlightenment.  Gautama said that he attained the cessation of perceiving and feeling by "lack of desire, by means of lack of desire"--he said that's how he attained each of the states of concentration.   He described that attainment:

 

 

“…[an individual], not attending to the perception of the plane of no-thing, not attending to the perception of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, attends to solitude grounded on the concentration of mind that is signless. [Their] mind is satisfied with, pleased with, set on and freed in the concentration of mind that is signless. [They] comprehend thus, ‘This concentration of mind that is signless is effected and thought out. But whatever is effected and thought out, that is impermanent, it is liable to stopping.’ When [the individual] knows this thus, sees this thus, [their] mind is freed from the canker of sense-pleasures and [their] mind is freed from the canker of becoming and [their] mind is freed from the canker of ignorance. In freedom is the knowledge that [one] is freed and [one] comprehends: “Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the [holy]-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being such or so’. [They] comprehend thus: “The disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of sense-pleasures do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of becoming do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of ignorance do not exist here. And there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself.”

 

(MN III 108-109, Vol III pg 151-152)

 

The cessation of "perceiving and feeling" is actually a cessation of "determinate thought" in perceiving and feeling (just as the cessation of inbreathing and outbreathing in the fourth concentration is actually the cessation of "determinate thought" in inbreathing and outbreathing).  You can read more about that here, if you like.
 

More about happiness:

“…What do you think about this, reverend Jain: Is King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha, without moving his body, without uttering a word, able to stay experiencing nothing but happiness for seven nights and days?”

 

“No, your reverence.”

 

“What do you think about this, reverend Jain: Is King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha, without moving his body, without uttering a word, able to stay experiencing nothing but happiness for six nights and days, for five, for four, for three, for two nights and days, for one night and day?”

 

“No, your reverence.”

 

“But I, reverend Jain, am able, without moving my body, without uttering a word, to stay experiencing nothing but happiness for one night and day. I, reverend Jain, am able, without moving my body, without uttering a word, to stay experiencing nothing but happiness for two nights and days,, for three, four, five, six, for seven nights and days.”

 

(MN I 94, Vol I pg 123-124)

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Mark Foote

[galen_burnett]

Mark Foote.

 

I think the first reply to the post by ‘whocoulditbe?’ already pretty much summarised what you’re saying. So I guess the questions towards the end of the post to the effect of ‘why do you believe the Eastern philosophies?’ apply, which I won’t repeat because presumably you already read them, having read the post, and have opted not to answer them; but really they’re rather important to answer if you want to argue against the post, in the same way that Christians are obliged to explain why they believe in the Kingdom of Heaven to an argument that says ‘i myself can’t see it, and I myself can’t see anything credible that hints towards it nor supports the notion of its existence’. Belief in the philosophy of another person that proposes the existence of an attainable paradise, be it Christianity or Buddhism is like this: if you are sitting in a shelter in the mountains or the desert and a traveller comes up to you and says ‘hey, there’s a treasure over in that direction across that difficult terrain’ it’s then up to you to believe them or not. If you believe them there will be something about them that makes them seem credible, or certain things you’ve noticed about the landscape or area suggest strongly enough that what they say is true, signs that are suggestive enough to risk a lot of trouble in following them to the supposed treasure. 

 

Regarding the cessation of cause-and-effect, no I don’t think an end to the chain of causation has any meaning; your mind and body may be still, but you’re still a part of things, just like a piece of furniture motionless in a room is still causing things to happen simply by being present. Rocks in a stream ‘cause’ the water to take a different path than it would otherwise. There is no escaping from being connected with everything else, and as long as we are connected with everything else we will perpetuate cause-and-effect. To disconnect from everything and exist as a thing in isolation doesn’t make any sense, as the form of the ‘thing’ that you are in mind and body is informed entirely by everything else; without everything else we are nothing, we cease to exist entirely.

 

If you reply further please know that I don’t read your quotes, rather I just presume that those quotes do indeed support what you are saying yourself. And it would be easier to use the thread if you just gave a reference to the quote rather than pasting long sections of books like that, and I’ll just trust that they do indeed illustrate your own words; but if you insist then I’ll just have to cope; and I don’t know how to quote just one line of a message in order to reply to it [edit, just figured that out, will use that format hereafter]. Really I’m interested in what people have to say in their own words; it’s fine if your own words and insights are similar to or resonate with a published philosophy; but if a person just says that ‘this published philosophy says it’s true’ then I’m really only interested in why that person believes that published philosophy in the first place. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by galen_burnett

[Nungali]

... yeah , I been 'speed reading '  *  those posts .

 

 

*   'glossing over'

[C T]

Interesting enough to initiate a common ground or consensus as to what "perpetual bliss" means? 

 

For most enlightened Buddhists, chopping wood & carrying water can be construed as a blissful activity that, among other things, perpetuates inner bliss. But then, so is not chopping wood and not carrying water. 

 

This subject was put forward to a Vajrayana master. I was in the audience. He said, "Bliss? When sleeping, sleep. When eating, eat. When grieving, grieve." Sounds simple, right? But actually, not that simple to put into practice because we are often controlled by layers of habitual tendencies.

 

Personally, I think bliss is the default state when the "I" drops away. "There is bliss" as opposed to "I am blissful". The latter produces a very limited taste of what transcendent bliss is in its truest manifestation. Maybe manifestation doesn't even convey the meaning properly. 

[thelerner]

Do we need suffering to bring on happiness?  Seems to me if we can appreciate 'better than normal' we're in a happier state.  It's not remembering terrible times and comparing them to now that brings me happiness, except for when I'm in a bitching mood.  It's appreciating the little things, sun, walk, people I'm with.. appreciating them and then forgetting them and being in the somewhat normal experience.  

[Daniel]

In my opinion, this is the fundemental question brought in the original post:

 

On 8/12/2023 at 1:35 AM, galen_burnett said:

If we accept the argument that joy and pain are essentially dualistic opposites, then how can we sever them, throw out one, keep the other and then escape into Non-Duality with it? How can we smuggle a dualistic entity—i.e. joy—into the realm of Non-Duality? Wouldn’t Non-Duality be devoid of all experience whatsoever—blanker than blank—as all experiences in existence, including all forms of joy and pain, belong to Duality? even ‘experience’ itself can be thought of as being a dualistic opposite to ‘non-experience’ (though non-experience is impossible to comprehend).

 

Rather than, say, Sahasraha (see Tantric yoga stuff) being an experience of the Non-Dual, isn’t it more apt to consider it as an experience of boundlessness, of formlessness, of unity, of mergence, of the infinite? which qualities are still within the realm of Duality, and therefore the Sahasraha experience itself could still be considered as a dualistic experience.

 

"isn’t it more apt to consider it as an experience of boundlessness, of formlessness, of unity, of mergence, of the infinite?"

 

100% yes.  if this is acheived, the forms still exist, but they have become insignificant.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Daniel

[galen_burnett]

@Daniel I could presume what you mean by that; but instead could you please explain what “the forms become insignificant” would mean.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Daniel I could presume what you mean by that; but instead could you please explain what “the forms become insignificant” would mean.

 

Sure.  Each and every "thing" has borders and boundaries which define them and distinguish them from each and every other thing.  These borders and boundaries, definition and distinction are the "form" of that thing.  The significance of the form is its contrast in relation to another form.  The signficance, the contrast, is inversely proportional to the number of differing borders and boundaries which are being compared simultaneously.  If only 2 objects, concepts, actions, etc are being compared, then, their differences are highly significant.  As more and more are included, the contrast between them is reduced.  As the number of included objects, concepts, actions, etc approaches infinity, the significance of the form becomes infinitesimal.  If infinity is achieved, a sublime unity is produced where each and everything, objects, concepts, actions, etc are realized as one sublime unity without division.  The forms and divisions still exist but have become eclisped and insignificant in the process of the unification.   

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

On 8/12/2023 at 8:22 PM, galen_burnett said:

"happiness and suffering (I’ll say joy and pain hereafter as they’re shorter words) are not considered to be exceptions to this rule of Yin-Yang opposites, but rather are just another manifestation of Yin and Yang—albeit the most fundamental manifestation of Yin-Yang, as what experience could ever there be in Duality without shades of joy and pain? 

... The notion of attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’ is common throughout Eastern spiritual-practices and philosophy: it can be found in yoga, in Buddhist philosophy, and in Daoism...
 

I was hoping you would notice that happiness and suffering are not opposites, not yin and yang, in the teachings of Gautama the Buddha.

Enlightenment as Gautama described it has nothing to do with perpetual bliss.  Oddly, Gautama ascribed a happiness to the attainment associated with his enlightenment, but these are two different things, the temporary attainment with its peculiar happiness and his insight into the nature of suffering.  

If you are wondering where is the happiness in Gautama's teaching, I laid it out for you in his words.  If you are wondering, what is suffering in Gautama's teaching, I gave you a declension, and pointed out that for Gautama, suffering is "in short, the five groups of grasping". 

Your question about happiness and suffering I thought required a definition of terms, and not in my words.
 

[Mark Foote]

On 8/13/2023 at 3:53 PM, Nungali said:

... yeah , I been 'speed reading '  *  those posts .

 

 

*   'glossing over'
 

 

I'm ok with that.

[C T]

 

[galen_burnett]

@Daniel Yes, the significance of the contrasts of Forms to an observer is great when the observer can only see or experience a few Forms—without the distractions of a multitude of other Forms then even the slightest differences between two Forms in your field-of-attention would be augmented, I agree. And, on the other hand, with a multitude of Forms to choose from to place one’s attention on it is easy to avoid noticing differences or contrasts between Forms by simply transferring your attention to a new Form when those differences arise; that is, say those differences between Forms are unpleasant, then to get away from the discomfort that those differences present one can simply go to another Form instead.

 

An analogy. Say I am backing up my computer. I am anxious about losing all my data. There is the ‘Form of my life in which my data is preserved for me to access and use when I please’; and then there is the ‘Form of my life in which I lose it all’... The anxiety in me arises because it seems to me that the life in which I lose it all will yield no happiness at all; I cannot see any other Forms of my life which would be pleasant, besides the one in which my data is preserved. I cannot perceive more than two Forms in this scenario (the two versions of my life with different preservation-states of my data) and so the contrasts between those two Forms are greatly accentuated. But if, say, I could instead see other Forms of my life in which, yes, I lose all my data, but yet I am still happy, then both that anxiety and the contrasts between the two originally considered Forms (‘data preserved’ and ‘data lost’) diminishes. 

 

The deduction from this, as you say, seems to be that the more Forms we have access to, the easier it is for us remain happy: the greater the variety of our options in life, the less chance there is of being cornered. Alright. Seems like we’re nearly arriving at the conclusion that attainment of Non-Duality equates to ‘perpetual-bliss’. 

 

But there are some steps in the logic we need to make sure of first.

 

So, the greater the variety, the greater our choices, the lower the chance of suffering. Here’s the trouble though: one Form can never encompass all the other Forms. No matter how versatile and adaptive one Form or person may be, they will never be able to assume all the other Forms into themselves, such that they have harmony with all the Forms; there will always be another Form out there to contrast with themselves. This is because in order for a Form to be a Form at all it needs to have boundaries and definitions, it needs to be able to be contrasted with other Forms; Forms are defined by other Forms. A bird can only exist as a ‘bird’ because it lives in a world in which there is at least one other thing that is not a bird; it is only because there exists a thing which is not a bird that we can look upon the bird and say “that must be a bird, then”. So long as you can feel and sense and have awareness, you will remain a Form. Furthermore, no matter how many Forms are within your field of awareness, as long as you can observe other Forms, you will remain a Form; an observer of Forms is necessarily a Form in itself, and therefore subject to harmony as well as dissonance with those Forms it observes. 

 

And so the only escape from this is to become ‘Form-less’, and the only thing that could ever be said to be ‘Form-less’ is the ‘state of existing’ itself, because there is no contrast to the ‘state of existence’; there is no such thing as non-existence; neither is there any variety of states within the ‘state of existing’—everything exists equally as much as everything else. The ‘state of existing’ is not conscious, it does not feel nor sense, it is just a state. But as soon as consciousness appears, however, on this canvas of existence, you have a Form. Consciousness always has a quality to it, it can always be qualified and described in some way; it is always feeling or sensing in some regard. In any given state, consciousness can be compared to itself in anther state: ‘jovial’ consciousness or feeling can always be contrasted to, say, ‘melancholy’ consciousness or feeling. Consiousness can never be experienced as ‘everything at once’; that would be a null state, a zero-consciousness, an annihilation. What experiencers of Enlightenment claim to be as an experience of Non-Duality, is in fact not an experience of unity with absolutely everything—no—; rather, such amazing experiences are ‘simply’ an expansion of one’s consciousness, a great increase in the field of one’s awareness, such that it may feel as though you have become one with everything, when in fact you have just harmonised in one moment with more Forms than you were previously in harmony with. Let’s say that in such an experience the Forms one harmonises with include absolutely everything that existed inside of your previous field-of-awareness; this would give the illusion that absolute harmony with everything had been achieved. But the experiencer I’m sure will soon realise that there do indeed exist Forms yet beyond their ‘Enlightened’ field-of-awareness, which will in time come into contact with them and thereby cause them both joy and pain, just as they used to experience in their ‘unawakened’ state. 

 

And regarding the ‘perfect bliss’ that is inferred from reaching this ‘dissolution of the boundaries of Forms’: I have already said elsewhere that I don’t think it makes sense to propose a state of happiness that exists apart from all other happiness; no, there is no degree of ‘wetness’ that sits apart and aloof from all other degrees of wetness; there is no speed nor velocity which sits apart and aloof from all other speeds of motion. If you’re calling it ‘bliss’ then it is a sensation bound to the spectrum of happiness, otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen the word ‘bliss’ to describe it; there is no taking one point on a spectrum off of the spectrum and putting it in a jar—that just makes no sense at all, you can’t take the colour blue off the colour wheel and discard all the other colours—; and if in this state of Unity you are experiencing ‘bliss’ then you are still a Form—a state of consciousness subject to feeling—and therefore, as I have laid out in this reply, you are therefore not ‘Form-less’ and therefore there will indeed be other Forms out there that will inevitably upset you in their contrast to your own Form.

 

Essentially, what your argument of the merging of all Forms suggests to me is a scenario where everything soups together into one great puddle, including one’s self, and then one is somehow just a happy (again, somehow the Form of ‘happiness’ has been salvaged from the merging of all things) puddle… Fin. Just doesn’t sound right to me. 

 

But thank you for stimulating me!

 

 

 

[galen_burnett]

@Mark Foote 

Buddhists think what the Buddha says to think; the Buddha thinks happiness and suffering are not opposites. The Buddha thinks there exists a ‘happiness’ which is aloof from all other happiness. I completely disagree with the Buddha, and that’s that I guess.

 

“[…] has nothing to do with perpetual bliss.” Dude, who are you trying to kid? It’s very very obvious to anyone who listens to talks or reads books on these matters that the ‘perpetual bliss’ of Enlightenment is absolutely the hook of those ‘religions’, and the reason why millions of people subscribe to them, just like the Kingdom of Heaven for the Muslims and Christians. Sahasraha, Attainment of Dao, Samadhi, Satori, Enlightenment, Heaven, it’s all the same thing—meditate or pray for long enough and you’ll break free from suffering into perfect bliss.

 

No, I repeat, I am not wondering what the Buddha thought about things. If people can only reiterate what the Buddha said then I’m only interest in hearing about why they subscribe to him. I’m not going to bother writing that out again.

 

Happiness and suffering don’t need to be defined. Everyone knows what they are—everyone can be joyous, everyone hurts. To play as the devil’s advocate for a moment: to try to redefine what it means to hurt and to be happy would be exactly the sort of thing someone would do in order to manipulate others into living a certain way for his advantage: “nah nah nah, you’re not actually happy, you see; you need to do this many flagellations before you realise what happiness actually is—trust me, I’m happy all the time!”.  

Edited August 15, 2023 by galen_burnett

[Shadow_self]

Just now, galen_burnett said:

@Mark Foote 

Buddhists think what the Buddha says to think; the Buddha thinks happiness and suffering are not opposites. The Buddha thinks there exists a ‘happiness’ which is aloof from all other happiness. I completely disagree with the Buddha, and that’s that I guess.

 

“[…] has nothing to do with perpetual bliss.” Dude, you are you trying to kid? It’s very very obvious to anyone who listens to talks or reads books on these matters that the ‘perpetual bliss’ of Enlightenment is absolutely the hook of those ‘religions’, and the reason why millions of people subscribe to them, just like the Kingdom of Heaven for the Muslims and Christians. Sahasraha, Attainment of Dao, Samadhi, Satori, Enlightenment, Heaven, it’s all the same thing—meditate or pray for long enough and you’ll break free from suffering into perfect bliss.

 

No, I repeat, I am not wondering what the Buddha thought about things. If people can only reiterate what the Buddha said then I’m only interest in hearing about why they subscribe to him. I’m not going to bother writing that out again.

 

Happiness and suffering don’t need to be defined. Everyone knows what they are—everyone can be joyous, everyone hurts. To play as the devil’s advocate for a moment: to try to redefine what it means to hurt and to be happy would be exactly the sort of thing someone would do in order to manipulate others into living a certain way for his advantage: “nah nah nah, you’re not actually happy, you see; you need to do this many flagellations before you realise what happiness actually is—trust me, I’m happy all the time!”.  

 

Engage with the  Paticca-Samuppada-Vibhanga Sutta

 

And read it over and over with your question in mind. Take notes

 

Im pretty sure you'll get a far more fruitful conclusion than asking people with varying belief systems

 

[galen_burnett]

@C T I’ve addressed this many times throughout this thread. To try and redefine what happiness and suffering are is sophistic, in my opinion, and weak argument.

[galen_burnett]

3 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

If people can only reiterate what the Buddha said then I’m only interest in hearing about why they subscribe to him. I’m not going to bother writing that out again.

“the Buddha”—any proponent of Enlightenment.

[C T]

36 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

@C T I’ve addressed this many times throughout this thread. To try and redefine what happiness and suffering are is sophistic, in my opinion, and weak argument.

Well, the gist of your OP rests on the question whether perpetual bliss is possible. That's fine, except you have not clued readers in as to your own definition of bliss, or if you did, I must have missed it. This being the case, I'm not actually requesting that you repeat or redefine the concept per your understanding. 

[galen_burnett]

@C T Isn’t it apparent that I have no such special definition of happiness? I think because you subscribe to such a definition yourself, you presume other people to have one; but no, like probably most people outside of the circles of Eastern philosophy, I do not have any special definitions for happiness and suffering, the world makes relative sense to me without them.

 

Your second sentence implies that you would indeed ask, for sake of the coherence of the discussion, what you say you’re not asking for in your third sentence; so regarding the post itself, just read ‘bliss’ as ‘great happiness’.

Edited August 15, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 14/08/2023 at 10:31 AM, C T said:

Interesting enough to initiate a common ground or consensus as to what "perpetual bliss" means? 

 

For most enlightened Buddhists, chopping wood & carrying water can be construed as a blissful activity that, among other things, perpetuates inner bliss. But then, so is not chopping wood and not carrying water. 

 

This subject was put forward to a Vajrayana master. I was in the audience. He said, "Bliss? When sleeping, sleep. When eating, eat. When grieving, grieve." Sounds simple, right? But actually, not that simple to put into practice because we are often controlled by layers of habitual tendencies.

 

Personally, I think bliss is the default state when the "I" drops away. "There is bliss" as opposed to "I am blissful". The latter produces a very limited taste of what transcendent bliss is in its truest manifestation. Maybe manifestation doesn't even convey the meaning properly. 

I just saw this, Again, this philosophy is trying to separate the desired ‘bliss’ from other states of happiness; this is the same thing being addressed throughout the replies to this post. It doesn’t yield any discussion really because it’s essentially just moving the goal-posts: I’m saying “the idea exists that Enlightenment is perpetual great happiness; here’s why I think that’s a non-reality (opposites, Duality, etc.); now how do you support the Enlightenment idea I am arguing against?”; and then people proceed to just evade it entirely with “what is happiness? how do you define happiness?”. If you’re going to redefine fundamental concepts like happiness and pain away from the commonly-accepted definitions, then there can’t be any discussion, because you’re basically saying “no, the sky is pink, actually”. In order to think most of these replies to be in any way coherent I would have to accept your redefinition of pain and joy—how on earth would I do that?! the only way to do that would be to surrender the logic I know and subscribe blindly to Buddhism—and why then would I do that?! So you see outside of your own niche, your argument doesn’t stand, and I have to conclude that there isn’t really any opposition to the argument I presented in the post. The only way I could be persuaded is if a Buddhist could show me someone that I could believe was actually ‘perfectly happy’, and I don’t think that’s happening.

 

I don’t think this is going anywhere; or else I think I’ve seen all that I need. 

[galen_burnett]

On 14/08/2023 at 3:24 PM, thelerner said:

Do we need suffering to bring on happiness?  Seems to me if we can appreciate 'better than normal' we're in a happier state.  It's not remembering terrible times and comparing them to now that brings me happiness, except for when I'm in a bitching mood.  It's appreciating the little things, sun, walk, people I'm with.. appreciating them and then forgetting them and being in the somewhat normal experience.  

Absolutely, yes suffering is required for the existence of joy. They complement and balance and drive one another. ‘Suffering’ is inclusive of all degrees of pain and annoyance, not just the extreme. You don’t have to actively try and suffer, nor actively try snd remember the bad times, it all happens automatically. You only enjoy the sun because you know of times without the sun, you only enjoy walking because you spend time being still (try walking forever and see how long that stays being fun…), you only enjoy the company of others because you spend time without them. You only know what pleasant things are because you know what it’s like without them and because you know what their negative counterparts are like.

 

“if we can appreciate better than normal”. Well, yes, if you are better than normal, then you are happy… but how do you get “better then normal” without having “normal” in the first place? I’m not saying an exotic life is required for happiness nor anything of the sort—that’s what Buddhists claim, honestly (does the Enlightenment experience not sound incredibly exotic after all?); and of course happiness is found in a moderate ordinary life. But just because your life is ‘normal’ doesn’t mean you won’t suffer. Suffering isn’t just whips and chains and fires you know. It’s all sorts of little daily things that tick you off too, which are just as valid as ‘bad’ experiences as gross extreme traumas as well.

 

But really I’m not too sure what you’re getting at. You seem to be putting words in my mouth like I said we need to self-flagellate or something to be happy. 

 

 

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

Paticca-Samuppada-Vibhanga Sutta

 

is there an online source for this in english?  ( lacking commentary, ideally )