Temperment and the Path

waking

Hi:
There's a nice article in today's NY times about temperament. It reviews literature saying that most people are hardwired towards being more anxious or ebullient. The notion is that each of us has an emotional thermostat --we may have ups and downs but tend to hover around a particular level of happiness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/magazine/04anxiety-t.html?em

Buddhism, if I can generalize, tends to primarily focus on the existential similarities across people --we all suffer, and we do so for similar reasons. However, I think that Western psychology would argue that there are individuals who are more Dukkha-prone than others.

Why does this matter? First, I think it explains why not everyone we know is attracted to Buddhism. People with naturally happy temperaments (who are more also more naturally mindful) will be less likely to have the motivation to engage in practice.

Second, I think it helps set more realistic goals for our practice. There's a delicate balance between wanting to become more mindful and peaceful and accepting who we are. Of course there is room to change, but this may be less about changing the underlying unease or dissatisfaction than how we relate to it and accept it.

Your Thoughts?

blueface

Waking - interesting thoughts. don't know much but would like to try a response. It does strike me that those who suffer seek an answer to explain why they suffer and if there is a solution to suffering then are drawn to something such as Buddhist principles. I suppose suffering stimuli itself comes in different grades (missing your favourite soap or losing your job), as does an individual's vulnerability to that stimuli. Some people seem to be like Obelix- they fell into the cauldron of 'zen' when they were a baby and float around feeling serene. Others seem to go out looking for trouble despite balanced environments (me?).

In terms of how much 'talent' we each have to work with individual principles such as those the Buddha suggested I definately think we all differ - but i spose if you are pretty peaceful to start with you don't have the motivation to work at it and the wired guy on caffeine next door overtakes you: just like you suggested.

I feel i am naturally 'challenging' and have fleeting attention, and i suppose i would be at the back of the field in the race to 'an enlightened state' (contradiction in terms...erm). However, it seems this has such obvious links to my suffering that the teachings i have come into contact so far in Buddhism hit me as blindingly obvious- DOH!. Someone with fewer troubles might think of them as interesting ideas rather than the bolt from the blue.

I like the ideas you have suggested because i think human variety is realistic, and this may not be a valuable path for all personality types. Its just one path leading from the crossroads of life.

ownerof1000oddsocks

People are more likely to question their lives as soon as they have the luxury of time. Most people are too busy doing things like hunting for fruit or beating dust out of their carpet to be reminded of all that extra grey mushy stuff between our ears.

Sorry if that sounds trivial but for people with computers and other mod cons we've really lost the plot in terms of survival. You know we have a broad range of emotions and it would certainly be a terrible experience with a smile plastered on my face the whole time, or the polar opposite.

Stephen

It may be as you say Waking, that we are less prone to seek out the truth if we are already happy as-is. Then again, all of the extraordinarily happy people I have known (naturally "bubbly", helpful personalities) have been religious. Strange, isn't it?

This may suggest that despite our temperaments, we all still feel that there is something missing in our lives and seek an answer to fill the void. Where some are content to put their confidence in the untestable/unverifiable, others wander aimlessly seeking reason (or suffering without finding one).

I belong to this second group. I've been wandering rather haphazardly, sometimes almost tripping over my feet, in my quest to realization. No "religion", upon study of its purported facts and its history, seemed to hold the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything (the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy calmly asserts that this answer is 42, but I remain dubious!).

Japhy

1. "However, I think that Western psychology would argue that there are individuals who are more Dukkha-prone than others."

From my perspective, I don't think there is any argument to be had. For instance, Buddhism doesn't suggest everyone has the same level of suffering. Only that suffering is characteristic of life. How one deals with it in terms of recognition of the presence of suffering, its causes, the availability of a cure, and the precise remedy is really what separates outcomes. Buddhism has all these. Who can argue about this?

2. "Why does this matter? First, I think it explains why not everyone we know is attracted to Buddhism."

If the premise is questionable, so too the conclusion.

Everyone is their own master in terms of selecting a path, which they choose, or even not selecting a path. If they are happy as a result of any choice in this regard, then I am happy for them. If they are unhappy I can only say, "I have been very happy being Buddhist". That and offer them a contact should they want to learn more.