Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Unlimited happiness a good thing?

TheStarGuyTheStarGuy
edited December 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Hello, I have been looking into the Buddhist teaching and many of the things I learned made lot of sense. I was especially interested in the 4 noble truths that talk about 1) Nature of suffering. 2) Origin of suffering. 3) cessation of suffering. 4) The Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering. It definitely made sense for those to be like the ultimate goal of all life. So you get rid of all desires and have no suffering and experience happiness forever.

But a couple of weeks ago I watched this movie Serenity and one of the scenes in the movie made me doubt the 4 truths as being the ultimate goal. The scene was about a group of people gets chased in a spaceship to a deserted planet by bad guys. The inhabitants of the planet are all dead. The planet is filled with corpses and the cause of death is unknown. Later, they find out the bad guys had used a gaseous drug ages ago on that planet to keep their moody population calm and peaceful. But that drug worked to an extreme and they got so peaceful and happy that they didn't even feel suffering from hunger and other basic necessities. Its not like they didn't feel pain but there was no desire to get rid of the pain. With no desires there was no suffering. With no suffering they were happy enough to die without even moving an inch. They all pretty much died of not having eaten food or water because they didn't feel bad about any of it. I hope I explained it right.

I know this was just a movie, but It got me thinking. In real life any kind of suffering provides us with the motivation to do anything. We don't like feeling hungry is why we eat. We don't like our body to feel stiff is why we move. So assuming we find happiness and get rid of all suffering is it possible to become like the fictitious people of that planet and is that ok?.

Comments

  • MindGateMindGate United States Veteran
    edited December 2010
    No sane person would take detachment so far as to starve themselves of food. Whether or not someone is "enlightened," they still have desires. Thats something you can't get rid of. Its natural to have desires such as wanting food to survive.

    Quote from Federica:

    "like I said, you need to review your notion of detachment. Being detached does not mean abandoning everything. You need some attachment to something. But you have to be equally prepared to detach as and when necessary. Just where have you been doing your research?"
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited December 2010
    If you would be able to get rid of all desires, then why have the desire to do this in the first place? ;)

    Some things are just.. lets say 'hard-wired' into a human being and you can't change that. Wanting to eat when you're hungry is one of those I'd say. And so is the desire to be happy.

    I've yet to meat the first person who wants to be hungry and unhappy. :p
  • jinzangjinzang Veteran
    Once you drop your selfish motivations, what replaces them is love and concern for everyone else.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    edited December 2010
    The point is to feel pain when pain arises, hunger when hunger arises, etc., but you don't dwell on it and get wrapped up in it. It's the getting wrapped up in the pain that causes the suffering. You don't deny the pain, either. Just observe the pain and learn the lesson it has to teach, address the imbalance, and move on. For example, you get a stomach ache. You notice the pain, and you realize that what caused it is eating the wrong food, or too much food. You make a mental note to avoid certain foods in the future, or to not pig out. But you don't get attached to the pain, fixating on how miserable you feel, and weaving a narrative about that, creating unnecessary suffering for yourself.

    Similarly with hunger; you notice the hunger. Hunger is telling you that you need sustenance, or that your blood sugar is starting to crash. So you remedy that. Simple. Desire would be if you noticed the hunger and obsessed over having to have a steak, or your favorite dessert. Instead, you address your hunger without obsessing. That's eliminating desire. Having no attachment to the outcome (or process) of resolving your hunger. Taking in sustenance is a need, not a desire. Obsessing over your favorite foods is desire. The film was about not addressing fundamental needs, not about eliminating desire (though it sounds like it was trying to be about desire).

    So the approach is a sort of Middle Way, in its own manner. The film you saw portrayed an extreme. Extremes are not Buddhistic.

    That sounds like an anti-Buddhism propaganda film.
Sign In or Register to comment.