Buddhism is based on the Four Noble Truths the first of which is that “Life is Suffering”
Don’t you think this is a little old fashioned? After all, we are living in the age of technology. Those ignorant people were incapable of dealing with the causes of suffering much less comprehending them. In modern times many have been eliminated through technology.
True, some may still suffer because of unique unavoidable circumstances but to generalize and say that “Life is Suffering” is extremely insulting and denies the human ability to solve life’s problems through the objective use of the mind.
Wouldn’t it be better for us to demand a change in this first Nobel Truth on which everything is built to “Life MAY be suffering”, leaving us the choice of experiencing it as suffering or as wonderful?
Of course it is not the fault of ancient Buddhism for beginning with such a depressing conclusion. Its proponents lacked the benefits of contemporary education. But now that we’ve grown to realize how much choice man has for his life through the advantageous use of technology, This premise should be changed to give us the courage to attain the courage of our conditions in relation to our desires and develop the happy life that, thanks to technology, we have the ability to create.
Is there truly no end to these insults? This is the twenty first century. There is no more need to become nothing. We have the technology that allows us to become something wonderful and you want your depressive attitudes to deny us the happiness we are capable of? What greater insult than to tell mankind finally capable through technology of becoming truly something, that he should become nothing. This is an obviouslyantiquted notion.
This is how it used to be but it is gradually becoming longer the case. We have so many of these things and they can change from one into the other so quickly that they are no longer fleeting but with the right use of technology, can become a continuum insuring our happiness and the absence of suffering.
It is the twenty first century and time to get with it. Those old fashioned notions are no longer relevant thanks to our ever increasing technology.
As I read it, life means suffering. While Buddhism asserts the possible cessation of suffering by not being involved with it, this is not to deny the nature of the suffering of life.
In those days and without knowledge of technology to lead to the cessation of suffering, the only alternative was to deny it through lack of involvement. But now, with technology, we can become as involved as we like by creating our lives to satisfy our needs thereby eliminating suffering.
I looked again and it is still the same. When a person is involved with life they by definition are attached to its conesequences. If you don’t become involved with life, you avoid hurtful emotional consequences.
The advantage of the created life of technology is its potential to eliminate suffering. Being so involved with this path to happiness negates the need to avoid any attachment since there can be no disadvantageous attachment. It will all make you happy.
This is the twenty first century and time for logic. We can’t think in terms of blind sheep following the aims of those wishing to control them, we must examine the evidence.
You know you want to be happy. Technology affords the means for happiness. This is logical. Why bother with heaven, hell, or nothingness. Aren’t they all just substitutes for the inability to be happy? If you are happy, will you worry about heaven, hell, or nothingness?
You say this now but if you were happy, would you have any interest at all in nothingness?
How could they say the same things so long ago if the technology didn’t exist? The idea may have entered into their thought but they lacked the ability to verify it. Now we are realistically on the verge of achieving such happiness. With such a transition, who needs “nothingness?”
Geez, you looked at again pretty damned fast! It only took you 14 minutes to completely reassess your understanding of the whole philosophy. You are the man!
That’s what she said last night. Nah, just kidding and no jokes about 14 minutes either.
Imp
What do you have against happiness. You ask who the shepherd is but as long as we’re all happy, what difference does it make. Who controls the goals of technology. We do because if technology dedicated to the goal happiness doesn’t serve to make us happy we will not continue to support it. It must then adapt to serve our happiness.
Modern technology will gradually remove what causes fear and anger so we will be happy without meditation. We will activate brain centers at will and become all be as one in the common goal of being “Happiness.” How can you be so against happiness?
But what is the goal of freedom? Isn’t it basically happiness for oneself and happiness for all?
I’m confused. You seem to respect Buddhism which means you agree that life is suffering. I don’t believe that suffering is your goal. Happiness will eliminate suffering but this doesn’t satisfy you. So what really are you really looking for that freedom could provide?
Seems to be a misunderstanding here. To my understanding the first concern of Buddhism is the release from suffering, and Buddhists, feeling compassion for others, wish to lessen their suffering however they can. So if using a chainsaw saves someone hours of drudgery in cutting up their firewood, that’s great!
The main thing is to avoid staking one’s emotional and mental security on things that could change and so to find a more lasting source of security. Therefore we attempt to practice non-attachment. This does not imply not wanting to help better people’s condition in life or thinking that material conditions don’t matter.
Welcome to the boards and you picked a heck of a spot to begin.
So Buddhism wants a release from personal suffering and the suffering of others. It would be naive to place our emotional trust into insecurity preferring to remain detached.
But if technology solves the problem by alleviating the suffering, it becomes a lasting source of security. It is then safe to enjoy happiness, and since happiness is contagious, others will become happy and before you know it, the world will become happy with no more reasons to concern our selves with the questions of heaven, hell, or nothingness natural to appear during suffering and unhappiness.
Happiness through technology as you put it is simply another attachment. The second noble truth is that the CAUSE of suffering is attachment. That is exactly what the delusion is all about. If I buy that car, I’ll be happy, if I have that computer, those boots, that girlfriend, that job, this house, that _____________! It’s maya. Illusion.
Happiness was never the goal and nothing has changed. Your Buddha nature is no different today than Buddha’s nature was in the past.
C’mon Nick, wanting to change the teachings means something is amiss. Perhaps we have an ‘expert’ in our midst.
From the authors I’ve read, I’ve also understood the first noble truth to be “suffering exists” (which means the same as “life may be suffering”).
The second sentence, I would say is clearly true. Life (or more precisely, consciousness) is a precondition for all suffering and happiness, and hence by leaving life one can avoid suffering. I disagree with the first sentence, though. Here is an interesting essay that discusses how nonattachment can coexist with concern with life: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/7/zelinski001.html
A couple significant excerpts from that essay:
and,
It makes a lot of sense to me that ‘attachment’ is essentially the emotional belief that there is a Self that flourishes with one’s successes, and is damaged by one’s failures. When I become frustrated over my failures, it seems this is because I feel that in addition to whatever negative consequences result from such failure, “I” have failed. Without this emotional belief, it seems that a “nothing to lose” kind of attitude towards life would prevail.
