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.
physical happiness
aHappyNihilist
Veteran
i'm very new to buddhism, this is my first post, i've got a question i've been thinking about ever since understanding the basics of buddhism. I've philosophically reconciled everything else with logic but I don't understand one thing. What is the advantage of mental happiness over physical happiness?
I accept that physical happiness will lead to mental suffering but, theoretically if you were to be physically happy all the time what is the benefit of mental happiness as opposed to this physical happiness?
I accept that physical happiness will lead to mental suffering but, theoretically if you were to be physically happy all the time what is the benefit of mental happiness as opposed to this physical happiness?
0
Comments
There are 3 types of suffering, the elimination of which is the goal of Buddhism.
1) The suffering of change. Because all happiness ends it is unsatisfactory.
2) The suffering of suffering. This is what we normally think of as suffering, pain, etc.
3) The suffering of uncontrollable rebirths. This is caused by delusion, greed, & aversion.
So then we can feel pleasant or painful sensations exactly in the same way as we see pleasant or painful/unpleasant sights with our eyes... but they are only meaningless signals until interpreted by the mind, and so it is to the mind we turn our attention.
If we somehow stimulated pleasant sensation in the body 24/7/365, it would probably either turn us into docile lambs with no will to move... or the sheer constancy of the sensations would cause the mind to begin filtering them out, ignoring them, requiring more powerful sensations. Sounds a lot like a junkie, no? I think that's a good enough answer to that. Certainly not the kind of liberation Buddhists seek!
ill try to ask my question in a different way, does the superiority of mental happiness verge upon the concept that physical pleasure is impermanent? or is there more to it?
There is nothing wrong with physical pleasure, the problem is that we become mentally attached to it.
Ordinary "mental" happiness is not superior or inferior to physical pleasure. They are one and the same since the mind is what perceives and experiences them.
I really don't understand your question, I guess.
I mean, physical pleasure is "pleasure" because it is conceived of as pleasurable. Mind does the conceiving.
I really don't think you can separate the physical from the mental here. Though you can have purely mental pleasure. (Watch out biological reductionists!)
There is no "physical happiness" without a mind to experience and attribute the label of happy to it.
Happiness is a mental phenomena. Physical health and comfort can lead to ordinary/temporary happiness but without the mind there is no such thing as comfort because there is no mind to experience it.
Not really, the difference is that there is no difference at all.
The experience of physical pleasure is a mental phenomena.
I thought I answered it that way above. Sorry I didn't make myself more clear.
you're welcome.
Yeah, this one [edit: was] moving fast!
Pleasures can be either mental or physical, but true joys are to be found only in that which transcends that unreality we call Time. Hence, in an unhurried state, a follower of the Tao or Buddha or Jesus may actually touch the ground of being.
Time and our own judgments about what best to fill that Unreality with are the chief culprit. Buddhism teaches that it is only by letting go it all can get done. Or is that Taoism? Mystical Christianity?
That is not the Buddhist Dharma. Buddha never taught that any pleasure will necessarily lead to its opposite; he was referring to the grasping at pleasure.
I certainly hope that's NOT right.
I understand your words well enough hopefully you understood mine
i just realized that your little thing about Nietzsche was your signature not a comment directed at my name
NO, it's the suffering caused by relentless clinging to something, being enslaved by our needs rather than being master of them.
Yes.
And this is because pleasure is but the suffering of change. It is fleeting and ultimately unsatisfactory.
That's part of it, but it's not just limited to physical pleasure; the same applies to all sensual pleasures. True happiness, on the other hand, is a kind of happiness that's not dependent on conditions, and Buddhism is all about the pursuit of true happiness.
When constant, merciless change becomes the expectation rather than the aversion, then the real journey finally begins.
The state of peace for one who has gone forever beyond internal association with such concepts as "I" would be the most absolute and profound peace known to humankind. If you know of any greater liberation that is taught in this world, for this life, let me know.
If you're looking to define Buddhism's goal, it is best described as two-fold to include all schools of thought: liberation of one's self from suffering, and helping/guiding the liberation of other sentient beings. (Those are the big goals, but an awakened being spends the rest of their life in selfless service to others in whatever ways they see fit, or are capable.)
There are different goals that individuals have where Buddhism is concerned; some only wish to gain merit for future lives, others become focused on Nirvana to exclusion of all else (either for themselves or for others, though others will become the beneficiaries of such effort regardless), and everything in between. The Buddha's intended goal, of course, was cessation of suffering.
Well you say no but then go on to say that the thing which is the goal leads to happiness, so wouldn't the goal still be happiness? isn't that the reason that you want to be awakened to the nature of all phenomena?
also you sort of do the same thing with the goal of helping others, why do you help others if not to further feel happy yourself?
I've heard people talk about giving without expecting anything in return and they say that the reason they would give like this is for the joy of giving, so aren't you giving so that you yourself can be happy?
I've come to the conclusion that buddhism's goal is happiness but the only way to reach that goal is to tell yourself that your goal is helping others etc. Correct me where im wrong
You're one of many questions.
As to post #35, you could say that it's happiness (since suffering would be the opposite)... if you choose to view it that way, which you do (lol). We each come to Buddhism because of the route our own lives have taken, and have our own personal reasons to seek Nirvana. So, it's all good.
And as to the helping others being to make us happy, I'ma quote a post from another thread where I sorta went into that:
So in brief, the compassion taught in Buddhism is selfless compassion that is simply the "right thing to do" when we fully understand the nature of all phenomena, which closes the gap and eliminates the boundaries between ourselves and others (humans and all other transient phenomena, esp. life where dukkha dwells). If we are compassionate for selfish purposes, which would be on us alone, then we are not practicing what Buddhism teaches and intends in this regard.
Seems we can color Buddhism many ways if we "see" it that way. If you desire to be happy, sure Buddhism can help. If you want an excuse to help others because it makes you feel good, sure here's a Buddy-Buddhist pin.
“May I have physical happiness.” With this phrase we wish ourselves the enjoyment of health, freedom from physical pain, and harmony with our bodies. If freedom from pain is not a realistic possibility, we aspire to receive the pain with friendliness and patience, thereby not transforming physical pain into mental torment. You might also use a phrase such as “May I be healthy,” “May I be healed,” “May I make a friend of my body,” or “May I embody my love and understanding.”
Source: From Lovingkindness
glow - yes I know buddhism isn't masochistic, but even if it was I'd still follow it if it truly brought the mental happiness and contentment it talks about.
Selflessness, Compassion (toward all life), Honesty always tempered with Right Speech, and many more aspects could be rather flippantly described as "side effects" of the mind coming into harmony with reality. We put forth effort to cultivate these on our path to enlightenment (not knowing how long our path is and still wanting to help, and avoiding doing harm before we "know" better ourselves), but the awakened mind is predisposed toward these ways.
A great word for the Buddha's teachings, in fact the entire methodology, is "consistent". The Buddha realized Nirvana and not only taught in detail how to do the same, and the attributes of an awakened mind, but set forth a path that would start us cultivating those wholesome views and acting in kind long before these ways would become natural to us. To simply walk the path rightly is already living harmoniously (at least to the best of our ability). The gifts of the Buddha are indeed profound.
Pleasurable sensations are not the same as the state of mind we call happiness.
Yea, the unpleasantly verbose pointlessness of this thread is not to be confused either with unhappiness or the search for its cure?????
I was directing my comments to the thread starter. I didn't read the thread. So I wouldn't know. Not even if it was unpleasantly pointlessly verbose or not.
I shoulda made two separate sentences rather than appending my sentiments about the value of this thread to your quite useful remark.
I sincerely apologize for being so hasty and thoughtless.
Is it rude to want to bring closure to threads that seem to go in circles, and that people respond to without reading what has been written already?
This is not hard.
Physical pleasure is transitory.
Mental and emotional pleasure are also transitory.
Buddhists cultivate equanimity in order to deal with the transitoriness of both physical and mental/emotional pleasure.
It's that easy.
Okay I didn't underst your reply at all. Is that question directed at me? And if so, why?
You said you didn't read the other responses in the thread. My question is whether or not it's rude to want to bring closure to threads that seem to be excessively verbose and go in circles. How can we bring closure to threads that are excessively verbose and go in circles if people are not familiar with the other responses in the thread?
Just asking.
Are you assuming I wanted to bring closure?
I was merely giving my 2 cents on the matter. My post can be disregarded if the read feels it has no value.
Again, it's my problem entirely.