It's Time to Update Buddhism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

andmalc

But would you rather be at peace at the way things turn out or be happy with how they turn out? The point is that through technology, it won’t be a matter of being at peace because technology will allow you to create the perfect life for yourself. Why be at peace from avoiding the experience when the experience itself can make you happy without the struggling to be at peace?

The causes of suffering may be changeable but when technology keeps adapting to the changes and the patterns fall into place, the changes will be irrelevant and only serve to make you happy through their variety

Imp

Yes, life lived through technology will allow you to make of it what you want. You will at some point create your own reality through the aid of technology. Unless I’m mistaken, this will make you happy.

And what will be the emotional result of this interpretation? It will make you happy unless you are a masochist. Would you want to interpret existence to make you sad? Technology will create the environment that when interpreted will be pleasant which will make you happy. It all fits together like a hand and glove.

Iss

I understand you to say that your emotional self isn’t real and without this emotional belief, feelings of failure for example could not exist. But without an emotional self it appears that you believe in this “nothingness” as expressed before. So my question to you is if you’d rather be and feel nothing or allow life to bring you happiness?

22

no it does not

-Imp

23

Nick,

The kind of ‘self’ that I’m saying isn’t real is that which is supposed in a theory of free-will, that is, a self that transcends one’s beliefs, desires, and ability, which operates in a void separating circumstance and choice of action. It is the kind of self that David Hume also argued did not exist. I’m not denying the existence of a ‘self’ in the sense of something that can feel pleasure and pain, and strives to attain pleasure and avoid pain (I’m conceiving of these in the broadest possible manner, btw). This latter sense of self is wholly ‘organic’ (i.e., pleasure and pain are of ultimate value for it, and determine its behavior), where as the ‘free-will’ version is ‘beyond’ the phenomenal realm of pleasure and pain, and has its purpose in a kind of metaphysical (I think we could say “moral”) flourishing. I think that the unnecessary frustration I mentioned over failure to achieve desired ends is essentially a feeling that one has not been able to realize one’s moral purpose (which does not really exist – there is only pleasure and pain, not in addition some state of affairs that, for some mysterious reason, is ‘supposed to’ be brought about).

Maybe the sense of ‘moral’ that I suggest above does not make sense to you, but when I introspect my experience, it seems true that I get frustrated over failure to satisfy desires because I impose some way that my life is ‘supposed to’ be, without regard to phenomenal consequences. Perhaps thinking about how when people attain more goods, they eventually come to require these goods to remain content, will make it clearer. Why, for instance, do NBA basketball players become discontent when say, their playing time decreases, or they have to go play for a bad team (after having played for a good team)? By just playing in the NBA, they are basically living their dream, or at least the dream they had when they were younger. However, because human beings tend to come to feel entitled to have the goods that they have attained, these NBA players become frustrated due to feeling ‘robbed’ of what they feel is rightfully theirs. Without the sense of being entitled to certain goods, the goods then become wholly good, rather than things that “must” be had just to remain content.

Iss

24

I found this to be a pretty good presentation of “the four noble truths”, and thought I’d post it (found here: http://members.tripod.com/shin-westhartford/id12.html):

Iss

25

Iss

I think I see your point. Moral purpose does not exist and all that does is really the reactions of pleasure and pain.

So all this concern over winning and losing etc. as you describe with the NBA player is really much ado over nothing and better to be freed from it.

Under these circumstances and maybe it’s just me but it just seems boring emotionally. So it would seem to me then since there really isn’t any other concern, that the best solution is what is being offered by technology which is to create happiness through the creation of our own reality.

Life would still be suffering as in the first Noble truth and the cause is still attachment. But it seems that now we have modern intensive levels of attachment that make attachment only selectively the cause of suffering. Attachment will now offer sustained happiness. Instead of dogmatically rejecting attachment, updated Buddhism can selectively discriminate as to which attachments should be avoided and which to be accepted. This will have the effect of bringing Buddhism into the twenty first century and ridding ourselves of such absolute dogmatic assertions since we now have the opportunity for constructive choice of attachment in the pursuit of happiness and the elimination of suffering.

26

Nick,

Yes, basically. Winning is a kind of moral purpose, in that our concern with winning comes from the emotional belief that winning constitutes the flourishing of the transcendent “I” (well, winning can also be instrumentally valuable, but that’s not the only reason we desire to win). But if winning is not viewed as a goal, then why play sports at all? I think the reason is that playing sports allows us to experience the skill of our minds and bodies at work, and this is a kind of ‘beautiful’ experience (hence, pleasurable). The greater the skill one utilizes when playing a sport, the greater the beauty one experiences. The purpose of playing sports, then, would make a subtle shift from that of winning, to that of playing well; winning would just tend to be an effect of playing well. If one were to cease to be able to play with skill (or as skillfully as he did), this would only entail a decrease in his ability to experience beauty, and he would let what’s bad about the situation rest in that consequence, rather than also imposing unnecessary frustration upon himself due to feeling that “he” (his Self) is a failure.

I understand that. Sometimes I feel that my view is ultimately ‘nihilistic’, but I think that is just psychological weakness on my part, in that I still tend to be attached to a Self and to moral purposes.

So you are saying that we should cultivate our emotional dispositions to be attached to those ends that we can realistically attain and maintain, and be unattached to those which we can’t. And this is possible now because via modern technology, we have the power to ensure that certain ends can be attained and maintained. It makes sense, but I still think that attachment is an unnecessary condition in the first place for living a good life, and which has evolved to be such a dominant condition only because it was useful to the replicative ability of the genes that ‘encode’ human beings.

Iss

27

Iss

I would agree that attachment is unnecessary for the good life by cultural standards but to really be happy we must be emotionally involved with life. Of course in previous times such involvement would lead to suffering simply because we could not control life’s conditions. Now, on the verge of completely being able to create our own desirable reality,.conditions will no longer exist to create suffering leaving us to be free to experience happiness virtually on the level of bliss.

Buddhism as begun was compensating for our helplessness in relation to the nature of life as suffering. Now, with the ability to control life rather than it controlling us, Buddhism can be updated through selective attachment to reflect this growth of collective human knowledge we know as technology and bringing a deeper experience of happiness into our lives.

28

N.,

Buddhism as begun was compensating for our helplessness in relation to the nature of life as suffering. Now, with the ability to control life rather than it controlling us, Buddhism can be updated through selective attachment to reflect this growth of collective human knowledge we know as technology and bringing a deeper experience of happiness into our lives.

Excuse me. Where in the world do you imagine that out of technology, or some other historical-spiritual development that we have the ability to “control life” instead of it controlling us? Have you heard of Dachau? Have you heard of Hiroshima? Have you heard of the Khmer Rouge circa 1975? Have you heard of Rwanda circa 1994? (The list really is endless). Please tell the victims of these about the modern “control of life” and the old-fashioned, out of date nature of suffering.

Dunamis

29

Dunamis

Yes, all this was as a result of the misuse of technology because people weren’t happy. Technology was still unable to provide its potential. Once happiness is established through the gradual awareness of its advantages, there will no longer be reason for such incidents to occur. You can not expect smooth running during times of emotinal transition.

30

N.,

“Once happiness is established through the gradual awareness of its advantages, there will no longer be reason for such incidents to occur.”

Are you shifting your ground? You had implied that Buddhism needed to be revised…now…not at some hypothical utopian moment. You are missing perhaps the most important point. Power does not only ease suffering, it also increases it.

Dunamis

31

Setting aside the issue of whether Buddhism has any merit, I really doubt technology can be expected to eliminate human suffering any time soon. Sure, day to day life is easier, more comfortable, but everyone now living will probably die one day. For the foreseeable future, we’ll all get sick occasionally, we’ll all lose someone we love or someone we love will lose us. We’ll still hurt each other and be hurt by others. The pain and suffering of existance stems not from some lack of technology but rather from the very nature of life itself. Or so it seems to me.

32

Dunamis

This is true as we are now but when technology serves the purpose it can, it will no longer increase emotional suffering simply because it will interfere with happiness once it is really experienced and sustained for a time. There would no longer be the emotional incentives that increase suffering

Phaedrus

I agree this is not something that can occur tomorrow but is at least 100 years away. Technology is still in its infancy and its development is almost beyond current comprehension. But at least it leaves open the possibility of world peace through sustained universal happiness.

33

The Noble Eightfold Path which is the natural extension of the Four Noble Truths can now add the additional path of selective 9. Right Attachment.

  1. Right View Wisdom
  2. Right Intention
  3. Right Speech Ethical Conduct
  4. Right Action
  5. Right Livelihood
  6. Right Effort Mental Development
  7. Right Mindfulness
  8. Right Concentration

The first two inpire wisdom. The next three inspire ethics, and the last three inspire a greater quality of mind.

Thanks to technology we will begin to add sustained “happiness” which will unite with wisdom, ethics, and mind completing the human being.

34

I tend to be the kind of guy that thinks science is near boundless, but even I am not so optimistic as to think technology will ever erase human suffering. Again, the root causes of suffering are not simply physical, IMO. Will science ever genetically engineer us not be cruel to one another? That seems like a quite a leap to me.

Will science ever make us truly immortal? I wouldn’t bet against it, although I’m not holding my breath that it’ll happen in time to help me. But even if all sickness and even death itself were eliminated, there’d still be suffering.

Hard to say, though, I guess.

35

N.,

“Thanks to technology we will begin to add sustained “happiness” which will unite with wisdom, ethics, and mind completing the human being.”

Your moralizing view of “technology” is mind-boogling to me. When exactly do you imagine that “technology” started?

Dunamis

36

Nick_A,

You seem to need a dose of Schoapenhaur.

Let’s consider the question of whether life is suffering? First, let’s consider what being is: an empty void from which desire emanates in search of an external object to consume; once this external object is consumed, being again regresses into its original void. Once the passion or desire has been attained, life turns to boredom, until there is a new desire or passion for which being seeks to consume. Is man satisfied until the passion/desire is consumed? No, he is not. Is man satisfied after its consumation? No, for then, man becomes bored until he has a new desire to pursue. … It seems to me, therefore: life is suffering. (That is not all life is, but it’s quite large enough a part to give serious contemplation to how to get out of this eternaly finite [perhaps infinite, who really knows] bind).

Technology will not solve the aforementioned problem of ontology.

What every philosophy/religion seeks to do, is give a way for man to cope, or to overcome, his suffering experienced in the world, or in being (I’m paraphrasing Nietzsche here).

Note: I’m open to argumentation of these ideas, but unfortunatly, I doubt your ability to demonstrate an impressive counter-argument.

37

Well I guess its time to come clean. I really don’t believe what I’ve written. I wanted to play devil’s advocate in order to demonstrate the way in which a religious teaching initiating with a conscious source, begins to lose the quality of its esoteric meaning. It’s goal rather then the development of human being, gradually changes to its justification.

Happiness is an emotion relating to earthly experience. As I am, I like or dislike something so can become happy or unhappy with it. It is an expression of unconscious subjective emotional dualism.

The purpose of a conscious teaching is the change of being itself. I tried to show how I understand it in the “Acornology” thread. Happiness is an expression of the husk of the acorn or our personality. It is right for our personality. The kernel, in contrast, develops from conscious impartial experience.

However, if a person begins to think that he is more than just the drives of this personality yet it is this personality that lives his life for him, then, instead of trying to become happy, the motive is to become real. It is not to create an artificial reality for the sake of happiness but instead to experience reality in order to know themselves and: The question of “What makes me happy?” shifts to “Who am I?”. At first glance they would seem to be naturally related but perhaps they’ve become separated.

I was hoping to create something very unpleasant about “happiness” in the context of this thread. I ws hopne tht happiness would begin to feel inadequate as a goal of human being.

Buddhism gives the impression of concern about the quality of ones inner life. It is a way of achieving an inner balance not for the sake of happiness but inner balance leading in a direction Buddha never spoke of, understanding quite rightly I believe that it could not be understood and would only be argued about creating all sorts or theories and experts that would destroy the essence of the teaching. The teaching is experiential. The more one experiences, the more some of the deeper questions become clear. But the point is that life itself, not selective life motivated by happiness, must be put into the perspective of human “being”.

This idea of selective attachment appears logical to our personality. If there is no meaning to life other than what our personality is capable of it, then it would make sense. In fact it makes so much sense I guarantee that in the not so distant future some bon fide"expert" will write a book praising selective attachment and instantly attracting followers.

This idea of selective attachment, the foolishness of which becomes easy to see in Buddhism, has actually become quite common in Christendom. Its goal has largely become making people happy through the right sort of cultural life. Become attached to this or that cause and somehow one becomes Christian. But attachment is not the issue. Christianity is freedom from attachment which is why the world hates it since the world functions by guided attachment.

It is not so difficult to sense how this idea of selective attachment and adding happiness into the Eightfold Path cheapens the essence of the teaching but we’ve become so accustomed to it, we no longer can see how this idea of “happiness” emphasized through its secularization, equally destroys the essence of Christianity leaving at the surface nothing but Christendom.

There is nothing wrong with happiness. If a human being acquires the urge to seek meaning he must go beyond happiness as an expression of earthly life. Happiness doesn’t supply meaning but offers a subjective emotional reaction to an experience.

Is the meaning of the pearl of great price the realization of something beyond the happiness of our personalities?

Is there a quality of existence that is possible for me that I could become aware of that would warrant sacrificing, at least temporarily, my piece of mind in order to acquire?

Can this be indicative of anything more than an illusion that is bound to grow stale? Is it possible it could result in being even more than I imagine?

As Jalal al-Din Rumi once said, “There is counterfeit gold because real gold exists.”

I wonder: is there real emotional gold beyond the fool’s gold or this pearl of great worth that justifies selling your pearls? Is it psychologically worth the gamble to be open enough to find out or is it better just to stick with good scotch and the ever growing enchantments of technology to keep you happy?

38

Underground Man

Being is not a void. It has the attributes of reltivity and scale. No-thing as void of potential may be a void but “nothing” as potential, is actually “everything.”

39

N.,

" I really don’t believe what I’ve written. I wanted to play devil’s advocate in order to demonstrate the way in which a religious teaching initiating with a conscious source, begins to lose the quality of its esoteric meaning."

Wow. I guess we of small spiritual mind didn’t quite get what Master Nick was trying to teach us. :slight_smile: In truth I was starting to worry for you, when you started adding folds to the eight-fold path, I imagined that you had simply lost it.

Dunamis

40

Dunamis

It’s not a matter of Master Nick trying to teach but of how to make the question evident so as to be understood. I’m inviting you to feel it as I do. This is not teaching but only claification.