Hans Buddha's 4 Noble Truths and 8-fold Path ;)

[HansMustermann]

Ok, so in another thread I received the following invitation:

Maybe Hans should write down a set of doctrines explaining how all other doctrines are scams and that his way of viewing the world is the 'right' way ;)

Never one to turn down an invitation to take the p*ss, I embarked on a journey of spiritual discovery that ended with me accepting a glass of beer from a cute waitress (hey, the Buddha can keep his milk, I'm past that;)) and the flash of enlightenment and all. Yeah, right ;)

So without further ado, here's _my_ 4 Noble Truths. Remember, they're true because I said them and I just got enlightened ;)

1. Truth Of Humanity

You're just human, sorry. So are all the people around you. You have the same basic biochemistry, the same psychological needs, etc. In whichever direction you may think yourself different, you're probably a lot less different than you think. You will never become anything else.

Especially read some anthropology, psychology or have even the most cursory look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That's who you are. That's why you act the way you act. That's why the people around you act the way they act.

2. Suffering's Origin

All suffering is really your body telling you that you have an unsatisfied need.

It may be physical pain or cold or hunger, if it's the lowest level of needs, and it's really that important to get your attention before your biological life becomes impossible to continue. Or loneliness if it's something on level 3. Or something like job dissatisfaction if you're happy enough to have gotten as far as worrying about levels 4 and 5 of the needs pyramid. Even stuff like anxiety, worries, well, read that pyramid and I'm sure you'll figure out which need is not satisfied.

But they're all actual human needs. You'll never be above them. Sorry. It's just hardcoded in your brains. It would be nice to be able to stop being a human, but see Noble Truth #1.

Yes, it may seem like an endless cycle, and whenever you solve one, you start craving for the solution to another need. Like after you finish eating, now you're thirsty, and if you're done with that too, you start feeling a need for social interaction. That's the way the brain works so you keep satisfying all those needs.

3. Suffering's Cessation

Suffering ceases when you get off your butt and actually satisfy that need. Hunger stops when you eat, thirst stops when you drink, and need for social interaction is satisfied when you actually go talk to someone. Anyone who promises you a way to detach yourself from the human needs instead of satisfying them, well, see Noble Truth #1.

"But Hans," I'm sure someone will say, "that's a never ending cycle of desire and disappointment. That way lies wanting more satisfaction next day, more material goods, a bigger TV, more friends, etc. Surely it would be bliss to extract oneself from that rat race and not suffer constantly for such petty human needs."

Sorry, see Noble Truth #1. Your neurochemistry isn't going to change just because you think it would be nice to. That cycle is what life is all about. Trust me, the Dalai Lama's brain is executing the same loop.

Of course, you still have a lot of free hand in _how_ you satisfy a given need. Nobody's saying you should be self-destructive about it. E.g., you might go befriend the Joneses instead of going into debt to buy a car bigger than theirs and impress them. So use your brains.

Also, unsatisfied needs on the higher levels are less discomfort than unsatisfied needs on the lower levels. That's why you satisfy the lower levels first. So, generally, the higher up that list you manage to get, the better off you'll be. I.e., really, you're better off satisfying that need than trying to BS yourself that you don't have it.

4. There Is No Shortcut

I wish I could tell you some handy-dandy miracle remedy for all your suffering and worries, but there isn't. As I was saying, you were born a human, and a human you shall die. Anyone who claims to have become waay different, is either a liar or deluded. Anyone who claims to be able to teach you to be anything else, is either a conman or deluded. Sorry.

[I Ratant]

"2. Suffering's Origin

All suffering is really your body telling you that you have an unsatisfied need."
.
Too much of the suffering in this world is because you respond to someone imposing an artificial need on you, and you swallowing the imposition as if it -is- your need.

[Hokulele]

On a non-woo, strictly biological basis, I disagree with your truths 3 and 4. Sometimes suffering is strictly self-generated (although I agree, based on truths 1 and 2), but it is possibe to cease suffering without satisfying a need by simply getting the **** over it already.

For example, let's say I am driving home from work and an earlier traffic accident has shut down the only road from where I was working to my house (I live on an island, so this is not only plausible, but true and has happened more often than I like). My "want" is to get home. By your set of truths, the only way to satisfy that want is to actually get home. However, if I just accept the fact that I won't be getting home any time soon, I will stop suffering.

As I mentioned in one of the umpteen other threads on this yesterday, one of the ways to get over it already that works for me is breath control meditation. I do not ascribe anything to that other than basic brain chemistry and cardiovascular control, but hey, it works, and I am much less stressed as a result. To directly contradict your point 4, it is a shortcut, albeit a perfectly natural one.

[HansMustermann]

Well, "need to get home" isn't actually a basic need. It's a solution to another need, or a pre-requisite to how you were planning to satisfy another need. That's what I meant in Truth 3 when I said that you can satisfy them otherwise.

Really, the needs are more generic stuff like "safety", "esteem", "belonging", or "self-realization". Well, ok, those are the levels. But even if you count the different needs on each level, there are thousands of different ways to satisfy each of them. You don't have to get stuck on one solution.

I can't comment on your particular situation, because really only you know why was it important for you to get home. I can imagine a few ways why something like that could be turned off -- e.g., by realizing that the only way to achieve that would be to sacrifice a need on a lower level, like safety. But I can also imagine a lot of situations in which, really, the need didn't go away at all. You just kept it under better control, but in the end, whatever you wanted to do at home, you still wanted to get home for that. That's not the same IMHO as satisfying the need.

And I guess I'll answer here to I Ratant too. No, nobody can impose a new _need_ upon you. All they can do is convince you that you need their _solution_ to an existing need. What marketing and PR does isn't invent a new need, but convince you that their particular product is _the_ way to satisfy one of those. E.g., that the way to show belonging to a group is to drink Coca Cola like everyone else does.

But then you can realize that you can show your belonging to the group in a thousand other ways. Or just realize that the group will care less about what soda you drink than about, say, your being a good listener.

[Dancing David]

I will respond later, this is great Hans!

I feel however a lot of suffering, is not need based.

:)

[I Ratant]

:"And I guess I'll answer here to I Ratant too. No, nobody can impose a new _need_ upon you. All they can do is convince you that you need their _solution_ to an existing need. What marketing and PR does isn't invent a new need, but convince you that their particular product is _the_ way to satisfy one of those. E.g., that the way to show belonging to a group is to drink Coca Cola like everyone else does."
.
Ah, yes.
I keep telling people no one can "make" you do anything, you have to accept what task they want you to perform.

[yy2bggggs]

As for suffering being a signal that you have a biological need--the number 1 killer in the US, as far as I'm aware, is still heart disease.

In this case, it appears backwards to me... it looks like suffering induced by gratifying biological drives.

ETA: Might I also introduce the meme "Naturalistic fallacy"? Also, I'm glad we have such wise modern prophets as Maslow to replace the ancient worthless prophets as Buddha (I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, Maslow didn't do anything substantially different to come up with his hierarchy of needs than what some guy thousands of years ago could have done--not to dog psychology in general, but I'm wondering if there isn't an argumentum ad novitatem in there somewhere).

[Hokulele]

Well, "need to get home" isn't actually a basic need. It's a solution to another need, or a pre-requisite to how you were planning to satisfy another need. That's what I meant in Truth 3 when I said that you can satisfy them otherwise.


OK, that makes more sense.

Really, the needs are more generic stuff like "safety", "esteem", "belonging", or "self-realization". Well, ok, those are the levels. But even if you count the different needs on each level, there are thousands of different ways to satisfy each of them. You don't have to get stuck on one solution.


My quibble with your truths isn't with the sense of resolution, but the suffering induced by the lack of resolution. Your truth 3 stated that suffering can only cease when the need is met. I disagree and state that suffering can be treated (albeit not permanently) by things unrelated to the need. This addresses your truth 4 that there are no shortcuts.

I can't comment on your particular situation, because really only you know why was it important for you to get home. I can imagine a few ways why something like that could be turned off -- e.g., by realizing that the only way to achieve that would be to sacrifice a need on a lower level, like safety. But I can also imagine a lot of situations in which, really, the need didn't go away at all. You just kept it under better control, but in the end, whatever you wanted to do at home, you still wanted to get home for that. That's not the same IMHO as satisfying the need.


The problem is that you are using suffering and the satisfaction of needs in a somewhat arbitrary way in your OP. Your truth 3 claims that the only way to have suffering cease is by satisfying the need, while at the same time acknowledging that it cannot be a permanent cessation. I agree that there can never be a permanent cessation to suffering (at least, not as long as you are a living human being), but I do argue that there can be a temporary cessation of suffering by means other than by satisfying that particular need. Even though there may be thousands of ways to satisfy that need, there are also thousands of ways of addressing the suffering that do not directly address the need.

Does this make more sense?

[Hokulele]

I think I found a better analogy than the stuck in traffic one to clarify my point. Let's say I have a blister. It hurts and the only way to address the underlying problem is to wait until the thing heals. However, I can also stop the hurting by taking a pain-killer. It doesn't treat the underlying problem (need), but it does stop the pain (suffering).

[realpaladin]

Cool Hans.

As an excercise, let me try the 8-fold path to accompany it.

1 - Real View
Real View is the seeing of the path and what options are presented to you. It is the acceptance that your interpretations of what your visual faculties have told you you just saw might not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Seeing is believing is not necessarily all there is to it.
You do, however, not need to have any vaguaries that will get you to evade any concrete discussion.
It is a capacity of the mind, where intelligence just means the solving of queries by skill and a repository of factual knowledge and wisdom just means the ability the solving of queries by seeing the analogy of what you yourself or others have experienced in the past as related to the current query.

2 - Real Intention
You are human and a lot of your motivation to action is driven by emotion. Accept that you often confabulate the intention after the fact or the start of your action.
There is no finite or discrete number of categories of intentions. Any attempt to categorise intentions is merely a slight of hand to avoid #1.
You intent to have as little suffering as possible. That's it. Sometimes you achieve it by doing no harm and feeling good about it. Sometimes you achieve that by drinking a whole bottle of Scotch.

3 - Real Speech
If others like it or not, you can say whatever you want to say. Doing so might hurt others (and as a side effect cause you substantial suffering, something which you would rather not choose to have), but that is the long and short of it. You decide what comes out of your mouth.

4 - Real Action
You can do whatever you want to do. That's it. Again, as with the speech, there might be others who do not like it and their intentions and actions might cause you suffering, but basically, if you decide to take it, you can do whatever you want to do.

5 - Real Livelihood
You will do whatever it takes, within the context of the previous items, to 'get around'. That means you will be a drug dealer, a pimp, a priest, a soldier, a doctor, a pilot and so on. It either gives you great pleasure to do that, or it decreases the suffering by getting enough cash so you do not starve.
Or you just suffer and starve. That is also possible.

6 - Real Effort
You will put in just enough effort that your personal needs are met. No more, no less. There is no 101% and there is no 50%. Your needs tell you to lazy about? Then you lazy about. Your needs tell you to run like a mofo? You run like a mofo.
This is true, no matter what your mind makes of your motivations later on.

7 - Real Mindfulness
Forget about it. Your mind is way more complex than a model of a half-conscious four-pillared can describe. Self analysis is never more than 'skin-deep' and usually is like the process of checking if a horoscope matched the day.

8 - Real Concentration
Understand that the majority of your mental faculties are autonomous. It is a good thing. Whilst there are a lot of things that can be achieved by focussing extremely hard, a lot are not very good for you or especially useful. If it would have meant an easier or better survival of your species, you would have had it through evolution.
Let your concentration ease off more, you will find that rest and relaxation does a whole lot more for your general well-being than being focussed.

[HansMustermann]

As for suffering being a signal that you have a biological need--the number 1 killer in the US, as far as I'm aware, is still heart disease.

In this case, it appears backwards to me... it looks like suffering induced by gratifying biological drives.

Well... there is no such thing as "need to eat 3 Big Macs with extra salt and mayo." The need is actually just for "food". If you go eat junk, you pay the consequence for the wrong solution, not inherently for satisfying the need.

ETA: Might I also introduce the meme "Naturalistic fallacy"?

It _would_ be naturalistic fallacy, if it were about ethics. Since that's where that notion has been coined. But when talking about the biological pathways which give you the desires to fulfill those needs, well, I'm pretty sure that talking about their natural working is actually the correct thing to do.

In other words, may I introduce the meme "all your base are belong to us"? It's just about as relevant ;)

(Incidentally in the meantimes we also know about "mirror neurons". Most people _are_ naturally hard-wired for empathy. We're wired to judge what we do to others also through the perspective of it happening to you. Which isn't a bad basis for ethics, after all. So the naturalist fallacy may not be a fallacy at all.)

Also, I'm glad we have such wise modern prophets as Maslow to replace the ancient worthless prophets as Buddha (I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, Maslow didn't do anything substantially different to come up with his hierarchy of needs than what some guy thousands of years ago could have done--not to dog psychology in general, but I'm wondering if there isn't an argumentum ad novitatem in there somewhere).

Heey! Haven't you been paying attention? I'm the Buddha here, not Maslow. I didn't go through all the soul-searching in the pint of beer so that Maslow gets the statue ;)

[HansMustermann]

I think I found a better analogy than the stuck in traffic one to clarify my point. Let's say I have a blister. It hurts and the only way to address the underlying problem is to wait until the thing heals. However, I can also stop the hurting by taking a pain-killer. It doesn't treat the underlying problem (need), but it does stop the pain (suffering).

Well, it's not really how your body was supposed to work, but I see your point.

Either way, I wouldn't take those 4 truths to be really universal truths or anything. It's just taking the p*ss out of Buddhism, really.

[HansMustermann]

Cool Hans.

As an excercise, let me try the 8-fold path to accompany it.

Well, TBH I was more like going to go "whoever needs me to tell them a path hasn't read Noble Truth 4 too carefully" if anyone asks about those :p

But yours aren't bad at all either. Not necessarily how I would have phrased my list, but still, credit where credit is due, it's not a bad one by half.

[Hokulele]

Either way, I wouldn't take those 4 truths to be really universal truths or anything. It's just taking the p*ss out of Buddhism, really.


Understood, I just enjoy arguing about discussing stuff, even if it turns out to be completely irrelevent to real life. :)

[HansMustermann]

Understood, I just enjoy arguing about discussing stuff, even if it turns out to be completely irrelevent to real life. :)

Mind you, the painkiller objection is actually a very smart one and worth thinking about. For a start, if you're going to mess around with the chemical signals, the same could apply to Buddhism too. Get enough Pot and you could have your permanent Nirvana right away :p

[realpaladin]

Well, TBH I was more like going to go "whoever needs me to tell them a path hasn't read Noble Truth 4 too carefully" if anyone asks about those :p

But yours aren't bad at all either. Not necessarily how I would have phrased my list, but still, credit where credit is due, it's not a bad one by half.

Well, you had the Real Intention to put in Real Effort :D

[Hokulele]

Mind you, the painkiller objection is actually a very smart one and worth thinking about. For a start, if you're going to mess around with the chemical signals, the same could apply to Buddhism too. Get enough Pot and you could have your permanent Nirvana right away :p


Too true (er, not that I would have any first hand knowledge of what you are talking about of course).

It does make me wonder what masochists think of the concepts behind Buddhism...

[realpaladin]

Too true (er, not that I would have any first hand knowledge of what you are talking about of course).

It does make me wonder what masochists think of the concepts behind Buddhism...

They might actually like the whole 'sensory deprivation is a good thing' idea.

[rain]

2. Suffering's Origin

All suffering is really your body telling you that you have an unsatisfied need.

It may be physical pain or cold or hunger, if it's the lowest level of needs, and it's really that important to get your attention before your biological life becomes impossible to continue. Or loneliness if it's something on level 3. Or something like job dissatisfaction if you're happy enough to have gotten as far as worrying about levels 4 and 5 of the needs pyramid. Even stuff like anxiety, worries, well, read that pyramid and I'm sure you'll figure out which need is not satisfied.

But they're all actual human needs. You'll never be above them. Sorry. It's just hardcoded in your brains. It would be nice to be able to stop being a human, but see Noble Truth #1.


You seem to be confusing Buddhism with asceticism. Buddha recognized everything you said above, and that's exactly why he renounced the ascetic life that he had tried out, and in its place he began advocating the "middle path." In the middle path, you don't deny your basic needs at all; Buddhism is not about overcoming basic needs; it's about curbing your excessive desire.

For example, the Buddha would agree that a person should eat as much as he needs to live and be healthy. However, he would not agree with eating to cure depression or to eat food to simply distract yourself from other problems when you are not legitimately hungry.

From the point of view of Buddhism, the desire to eat excessively and the resulting morbid obesity would be examples of how excess desire can actually lead to increased suffering despite the original intent. This part of Buddhism is about drawing a line of distinction between needs and wants, not about trying to "stop being a human".

[AkuManiMani]

ROFL~! This is the best response evar! Thanks, Hans! :D

[rain]

Well, "need to get home" isn't actually a basic need. It's a solution to another need, or a pre-requisite to how you were planning to satisfy another need. That's what I meant in Truth 3 when I said that you can satisfy them otherwise.

The fact that the "need to get home" isn't actually a basic need is what made it a perfect example. It shows how some people's attachments to their particular lifestyles cause them to adhere to the illusion that all of their desires are somehow needs. One goal of Buddhism is to see through this illusion.

[rain]

2. Suffering's Origin

All suffering is really your body telling you that you have an unsatisfied need.

It may be physical pain or cold or hunger, if it's the lowest level of needs, and it's really that important to get your attention before your biological life becomes impossible to continue. Or loneliness if it's something on level 3. Or something like job dissatisfaction if you're happy enough to have gotten as far as worrying about levels 4 and 5 of the needs pyramid. Even stuff like anxiety, worries, well, read that pyramid and I'm sure you'll figure out which need is not satisfied.

But they're all actual human needs. You'll never be above them. Sorry. It's just hardcoded in your brains. It would be nice to be able to stop being a human, but see Noble Truth #1.


You seem to be confusing Buddhism with asceticism. Buddha recognized everything you said above, and that's exactly why he renounced the ascetic life that he had tried out, and in its place he began advocating the "middle path." In the middle path, you don't deny your basic needs at all; Buddhism is not about overcoming basic needs; it's about curbing your excessive desire.

For example, the Buddha would agree that a person should eat as much as he needs to live and be healthy. However, he would not agree with eating to cure depression or to eat food to simply distract yourself from other problems when you are not legitimately hungry.

From the point of view of Buddhism, the desire to eat excessively and the resulting morbid obesity would be examples of how excess desire can actually lead to increased suffering despite the original intent. This part of Buddhism is about drawing a line of distinction between needs and wants, not about trying to "stop being a human".

[HansMustermann]

The fact that the "need to get home" isn't actually a basic need is what made it a perfect example. It shows how some people's attachments to their particular lifestyles cause them to adhere to the illusion that all of their desires are somehow needs. One goal of Buddhism is to see through this illusion.

Mind you, rain, I never said that Buddhism is all bad or anything. It's probably just my poor writing style that makes people assume stuff I wasn't planning to say.

E.g., I'll freely admit that the ethical conduct trifecta of their 8-fold road isn't a bad code of conduct by half.

All I've been trying to say in those two threads is merely that:

1. At least a good number of its practitioners do believe in various forms of non-scientific woowoo. Even the parts which are not strictly speaking supernatural, well, they're not exactly following the scientific method to reach those conclusions.

So, you know, I have a problem with identifying myself as the same "atheist" label that technically includes those too.

Now maybe you or David are really thoroughly secular dudes and follow only the philosophical parts of it, as a secular philosophy and/or technique. Kudos. I have no problem with identifying myself in the same category with you two then.

But, for example, the Dalai Lama whose whole claim to power is that he's the same dude for several centuries straight, only reincarnated in different bodies... well, I don't care if strictly speaking he's an atheist or not, it's not the kind of idea I was intending to give when I say I'm an "atheist".

Now fair enough, I'm not going to tell everyone else to stop using the word. It never works anyway. I'm just going to call myself a "skeptic."

2. As I was saying, the parts I do find ok in it, well, have been done better (e.g., in a properly scientific fashion) in other places.

E.g., I don't need a bodhi to tell me how to distinguish between real needs and the illusion of needs when, see the OP, I can read a proper psychology book and get to the same conclusion.

Again, I'm not saying this makes buddhism "bad". All I'm saying is, really, "not that special." There's a difference.

3. Things are often more complicated, and the satisfied need isn't the obvious one at all.

I'll use the same example I've used in those other threads -- and yes, I know it's not the only topic that Buddhism touches, but it's a useful one for _my_ point -- and that example is consumerism and conspicuous consumption. At a superficial look, it looks like it's just silly people that are too attached to material possessions, and who confuse their cravings for shiny things for real needs. Right? You may or may not take the karma way through it, but that's the general gist of the explanation, right?

Well, we'll give Maslow a break for now. (If I make him spin any harder in his grave, he'll strike oil soon;)) We'll look at the next level of that human behaviour stack, namely anthropology.

And there you'll find that those behaviours are actually _group_ behaviours. They're acquired cultural behaviours, and culture basically just means: a way a large group of people self-organizes, to be able to function as a group.

Nobody would buy a bigger car, for example, if you put them on a desert island where they'll never ever be able to show that car to anyone else. It's just a way to impress the group, and to achieve a certain status in that group.

From a pragmatic point of view, the group actually benefits from making the rich guys keep the money circulating by, well, blowing it on shiny crap and status symbols.

If we return to Maslow (hey, he rested enough already;)) the actual need involved is on level 3: "belonging". We do that crap to belong to a group. It's not just some illogical, self-destructive behaviour, it really serves a real need.

It may not be the best or smartest way to satisfy a need, but it's easier than being a one-man crusade to change the culture. Even with organized group efforts, moving culture is a bit like moving a tank. If you push too hard, it actually starts pushing back. So an easy way out is to just give up and do whatever your culture expects of you.

And btw, Maslow and anthropology there aren't either-or explanations of the phenomenon, they're really like the TCP and the IP in your network connection. They're different layers of the same social animal protocol. And if you move even lower on the stack, you see that peak-and-decay-to-baseline of the reward signals I've mentioned in another thread. It's really a very complex, multi-layer thing.

And IMHO too often shortcuts are taken in damning it, instead of understanding it.

[Hokulele]

So, you know, I have a problem with identifying myself as the same "atheist" label that technically includes those too.

Now maybe you or David are really thoroughly secular dudes and follow only the philosophical parts of it, as a secular philosophy and/or technique. Kudos. I have no problem with identifying myself in the same category with you two then.

But, for example, the Dalai Lama whose whole claim to power is that he's the same dude for several centuries straight, only reincarnated in different bodies... well, I don't care if strictly speaking he's an atheist or not, it's not the kind of idea I was intending to give when I say I'm an "atheist".

Now fair enough, I'm not going to tell everyone else to stop using the word. It never works anyway. I'm just going to call myself a "skeptic."


Do you also have problems identifying yourself with the label "human" as that most often includes those who follow woo as well?

[Piscivore]

Too true (er, not that I would have any first hand knowledge of what you are talking about of course).

It does make me wonder what masochists think of the concepts behind Buddhism...

I've been having thoughts in that direction, the whole "suffering builds character" and "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock" sort of thing.

[HansMustermann]

Well, I don't go presenting myself as "hi, I'm a human" all over the place, because it doesn't convey any information beside the already default assumption. Until we get into a federation with some aliens, it's just not the kind of thing that would warrant saying.

It's not that I'm not still "human", it's that it's just not very useful information to go around saying about yourself.

Same with "atheist", really. I don't find much use any more in saying something that vague.

A label, in the end, is just a piece of information. If it's too vague, or not the exact meaning I'm trying to convey, I have no use for it for very pragmatic reasons.

Really, same as I don't go around saying I'm right-handed.

[I Ratant]

I recall reading a speculative fiction story in ASF or Asimov's where a rural community had a resident telepath, who could sense when anyone within some miles had a real need for assistance.
Timmy falling in the well, for instance, and Lassie not around to get Chuck, the empath would feel Timmy's need and direct the rescue effort towards the well.
But, if a junkie was within his reception range, the need of the junkie for a fix would overwhelm the guy, and basically shut him down.
I disrecall how that was handled.
Anyway, it was a good explanation of what need is, as opposed to want.
I may have wanted to get out of the traffic jam way back when when I had to commute, but after many years of getting all bent out of shape sitting in the car, I decided it was less aggravating to just wait it out.

[rain]

If we return to Maslow (hey, he rested enough already;)) the actual need involved is on level 3: "belonging". We do that crap to belong to a group. It's not just some illogical, self-destructive behaviour, it really serves a real need.


"Belonging" is perhaps not illogical in and of itself. But buying something like an expensive car just to belong is almost always illogical. Why would I or anybody want to be part of a group in which status depends, not on individual personality or lifestyle, but instead on how cool a car is deemed to be? And as far as at work, isn't a strong work ethic combined with good social skills going to give me a better chance at promotion than, say, happening to own a Jaguar? I think trying to impress people with really expensive material objects has more to do underlying insecurity issues than anything else. It's one thing to own a car just because you like it, but quite another to buy one to fit in.

And as far as it being easier to go through all that hassle just to fit in, I totally disagree. Even a moderately-priced nice car represents a huge time and effort investment for the vast majority of workers. I've been driving a fairly ugly green Ford Taurus for the last eight years that I bought used for $3000. So far, society hasn't shunned me and I think I fit in as well as anybody else. And it was fairly easy for me because I was able to pay it all off in cash so there were no monthly interest payments, and I only had to work part-time to be able to afford it. I don't see how this represents some kind of strenuous one-man crusade against the system; it was actually a lot easier not to buy into the television commercial-fueled culture that tells us we are inferior unless we buy the newest and best products.

[rain]

From a pragmatic point of view, the group actually benefits from making the rich guys keep the money circulating by, well, blowing it on shiny crap and status symbols.



Isn't this the kind of attitude that, in part, caused the current recession? If people weren't concerned so much about their status, they probably wouldn't be so irresponsible about using their credit cards and loans to live above their means. Money does need to be circulated in a capitalist environment, but I don't agree that it needs to be spent on status symbols.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Psh, all you've done is replace a religion with an out-dated pseudo-scientific model and poorly defined terms...

Oh, wait... :p

[The_Animus]

Hans: First off I see what you are saying throughout most of this thread, and I am in a similar position where I find many of the philosophical views of buddhism to be useful while the more ritualistic and mythical stories aspect I simply ignore.

Soccer, football, and many other sports have varying rules and some of these rules are very similar across the different games. Regardless of whether you find one of them more fun than the other or the rules more balances, they all promote an active healthy lifestyle and improved cardiovascular system, heart function, and muscle retention. In the same way you can have people like maslow, or the buddha, or yourself give similar rules for living or philosophies about human nature but ultimately they all promote a similar understanding about people and the nature of our existance, especially in relation to suffering and desires. I don't know if I said that very clearly but hopefully you get the gist.

Buddhism to me, (and I'm not really a buddhist, so I guess more how I see buddhism), is an effective way to keep these principles in mind and to practice them consistantly in life. I mean how many people read about maslows heirarchy of needs and incorporate that into their daily lives in an effort to improve their life by reducing suffering and better understanding their desires? Buddhism is a tool which helps people to be more compassionate towards others and reduce suffering in their lives.


From a pragmatic point of view, the group actually benefits from making the rich guys keep the money circulating by, well, blowing it on shiny crap and status symbols.


I disagree with this. What good does making, buying, and using those shiny pieces of crap and status symbols do for the group? Instead the rich guys could use that money and the manpower it hires to provide real benefits to the entire group by say building energy efficient homes, or sustainable and durable water filtration systems, or something along those lines.

[yy2bggggs]

Well... there is no such thing as "need to eat 3 Big Macs with extra salt and mayo."+ The need is actually just for "food". If you go eat junk, you pay the consequence for the wrong solution, not inherently for satisfying the need.There are a few problems with this.

The need here is:
It may be physical pain or cold or hunger
...which is a craving. But "hunger" is just an arbitrary category. And, in fact, we do crave particular things. "Food" is an oversimplification--we can't get by eating sand and ice, and at least ice is incapable of satisfying hunger (I don't know about sand--never tried it, not tempted to).

What we need, in particular, is food that has energy in it--primarily, we need macronutrients. Water in itself (sometimes considered macronutrient, sometimes not) has its own particular drive (and FYI, I can debate how well thirst aligns to our need for water). We need macronutrients because we need energy, and we need constant energy because we use a lot of it, due to our warm blooded nature, not to mention that glucose hogging supercomputer we carry around.

So it's not merely "something to eat" that we need--we need the energy per se. As such, we actually crave particular sorts of things. High energy things, like fats, and easy to use energy, like carbohydrates (in particular, starches and sugars), are particularly rich forms of energy, and those particular things are what we crave.

Introduce the McValue Meal<TM>--a superstimulus to our cravings. Carbohydrate encased fat laced with liquid carbohydrate condiments, a side of starch sticks soaked in fats, and a large sugar dissolved in some nice bubbly.

Now you're entirely correct--we don't need the 3 big macs, fries, and coke--what we need is energy. But we have huge energy reserves stored from cumulative fat and sugar storages from some thousands of McValue Meals eaten prior. So we have what we need many times over. And... yet... we suffer hunger. We crave the starches... we crave the fats. We don't have to be trained to crave McValue Meals... it works entirely the other way. Such superstimuli were designed to align up with what we crave--what we do not, in fact, need.

But you said, in 2: "All suffering is really your body telling you that you have an unsatisfied need."

I can't help but cry as I type "unsatisfied" while quoting you here. There's nothing unsatisfied about this need. There's just a drive loosely based on a need in a completely different sort of environment altogether. We're far, far, far past needing energy. It's literally to the point of causing suffering--it's killing us. But we still hunger.

It _would_ be naturalistic fallacy, if it were about ethics.
Agreed. But it's still a naturalistic fallacy all the same, as long as it's a fallacy committed where you're promoting as good something that is allegedly natural.
But when talking about the biological pathways which give you the desires to fulfill those needs, well, I'm pretty sure that talking about their natural working is actually the correct thing to do.Well I discussed one problem with this already, but this leads to a second problem--the lack of a coherent concept for "natural working".

I refer you back to 1. You're just human, sorry. You have the same basic biochemistry, the same psychological needs, etc. You're just a giant ball of chemicals mixing and reacting as chemicals do according to the laws of nature. Your "natural workings" is something you can no more betray than gravity--you are a piece of nature, and are by definition, natural. It's natural to crave those big macs--it's natural to clog your arteries, and it's natural to die of heart attacks. Perchance you're suggesting that our body needs to die of a heart attack?

The only other sort of natural that I imagine you can be appealing to is the one I am highly cynical of--the kind of natural that those granola bars are stamped with, despite the fact that I have never in my life happened upon a granola bar tree.

So I suppose what I'm looking for is some sort of working definition of "natural workings" that simply doesn't beg the question. Some, as I guess I'm supposed to say on these fora, "non-woo" version of the concept.

In other words,Zig
(Incidentally in the meantimes we also know about "mirror neurons". Most people _are_ naturally hard-wired for empathy. We're wired to judge what we do to others also through the perspective of it happening to you. Which isn't a bad basis for ethics, after all. So the naturalist fallacy may not be a fallacy at all.)Incidentally, may I introduce you to another meme--"argumentum ad logicam"?
Heey! Haven't you been paying attention? I'm the Buddha here, not Maslow. I didn't go through all the soul-searching in the pint of beer so that Maslow gets the statue ;)
Were you TUI when typing this?
Especially read some anthropology, psychology or have even the most cursory look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That's who you are. That's why you act the way you act.
My point here is, not that I believe it to literally be true, but for all I care, Maslow is Buddha reincarnate. I can understand being skeptical of the Buddha... I'm not a Buddhist myself (incidentally, this is my harshest criticism of Buddhism: "I am not a Buddhist." Take that, Buddhists!). But what I don't understand is what the point is of killing Buddha if you're just going to reincarnate him. Perhaps you prefer Buddha who are slimmer with hair?

Were Maslow a cognitive scientist pointing to brain areas representing needs or something a bit more concrete, it'd be different, but all I see is another Buddha in modern clothes.

[Hokulele]

OK, just because I have seen this in a couple of threads now and it's starting to bug me:


The fat bald guy isn't Buddha, his proper name is Hotei and he was a Buddhist monk. He pops up in a couple of theistic strains of Taoism and Buddhism as a god of Luck, hence the proliferation of his statues. Asians are all about luck.

[rain]

Especially read some anthropology, psychology or have even the most cursory look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That's who you are. That's why you act the way you act. That's why the people around you act the way they act.



I've noticed that you keep mentioning Maslow. And you say "that's why you act the way you act." How does Maslow's level of self-transcendence fit in within all this? You were the one that was so against the idea of enlightenment because it implied that some people were wiser than others, right? Maslow said he estimated that two percent or less of the total population will ever reach the "highest" state beyond self-actualization. Doesn't Maslow's belief system and worldview, which held mystical experiences in a positive light, contradict nearly every position you've taken on this and the other thread?

[HansMustermann]

Well, the way I understand that pyramid, it's not about some sort of enlightenment or transcendence at all. Being at level 5 just means you were lucky enough to have satisfied the needs on level 1 to 4. For the moment. Later you'll get, say, hungry and be back to satisfying a need on level 1 again.

It's not some scale of enlightenment. It's really just a priority sorting of the needs. If you're lonely and hungry, typically you'll go have a snack before you call a friend, because the former is on a lower level than the latter. I.e., it has higher priority. If you have to choose before being hungry but chasing your dream in life (e.g., writing the masterpiece of your life), and having a crap job that keeps you fed and sheltered, most people choose the latter. Self-actualization is waay higher on there, which actually means lower priority.

There's really all there is to it.

That 1-2% of the people actually managed to ever have the whole list satisfied, well, there isn't anything mystical about it. It just means that few have been lucky to be able to.

Historically probably 99% of the people who ever lived, just never had any choice to fulfill more than the lowest levels. I don't think anyone gave, say, slaves or peasants much of a choice at self actualization. They were kept at basic subsistence level, so even the first most basic level of needs was hit and miss half the time.

But again, getting to the top doesn't make you more enlightened than them. It just makes you luckier to have had the possibility.

Whether Maslow held any mystical views, well, that's not very important for his pyramid. There is nothing inherently mystical about it, and there is no mystical reason why the other psychologists saw that it was good.

In the end, it's not even that big a revelation. It was already clear that people have needs and that they'll try to satisfy them. All Maslow did was sort the list, pretty much.

In that aspect, I don't even really need Maslow to make the point in the OP. You have needs, and your brain gives you signals that you ought to satisfy them. Does that require any suspension of disbelief? Does it really need any mystical or transcendence part to explain why you have a signal to tell you to go eat or to go socialize?

[HansMustermann]

My point here is, not that I believe it to literally be true, but for all I care, Maslow is Buddha reincarnate. I can understand being skeptical of the Buddha... I'm not a Buddhist myself (incidentally, this is my harshest criticism of Buddhism: "I am not a Buddhist." Take that, Buddhists!). But what I don't understand is what the point is of killing Buddha if you're just going to reincarnate him. Perhaps you prefer Buddha who are slimmer with hair?

Were Maslow a cognitive scientist pointing to brain areas representing needs or something a bit more concrete, it'd be different, but all I see is another Buddha in modern clothes.

Well, as I was telling Rain, Maslow isn't even very important for my point. It does make a handy sorted list of needs, but Maslow didn't invent the concept of needs or anything. He just sorted the list.

So he's not really like some Buddha of psychology.

Without Maslow at all, the point still remains: you have needs, your brain has the desire and reward pathways to make you go do something about them. You don't really need Maslow to notice that, say, you get hungry or lonely at times, and that you feel better after you do something about it.

And if you prefer something more scientific, in the meantime we know even the chemicals involved in those pathways. And have put people in MRI machines in just about any imaginable situation to see what happens in their brains there. There's a couple who even imaged their brains while making love. (If you thought filming yourself was top tech...;))

So if you don't think Maslow would make a good statue in my hedonism temple, fine, forget about Maslow completely. As long as you can accept that a biological social being has _some_ needs and the desire/reward signals to satisfy them, we're good to go anyway.

ETA: And to address your other objection, yes, it's imperfect. Yes, your body does't know that you'll always have a supply of food and that it's ok to just burn the existing fat reserves. It likes to have some reserves because those were the conditions it evolved in. But nevertheless it thinks it needs food regularly, and that's all that that sensation is telling you. It won't cease until you eat.

[HansMustermann]

I disagree with this. What good does making, buying, and using those shiny pieces of crap and status symbols do for the group? Instead the rich guys could use that money and the manpower it hires to provide real benefits to the entire group by say building energy efficient homes, or sustainable and durable water filtration systems, or something along those lines.

There _are_ cultures in which your status is based on how much you give away, not by how much you hoard. So, yes, in that aspect ours is not the optimal solution.

Nevertheless, that's what our culture is, and people do stupid stuff just because their culture values stupid stuff. That was really all I was saying. Most people do think it's stupid at some point or another, but then eventually just go essentially "ah, screw it" and just do what's expected of them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to changing the culture, if you'd rather do that. I wish you good luck with it, even.

What I'm more like saying is that understanding the group game is more useful than just railing against the symptoms and making up "karma" pseudo-explanations for it. If you want to change the game, basically, it's IMHO useful to start by understanding what the game is.

Otherwise it's IMHO like watching a game of soccer and going "OMG, they're all stupid to fight over one ball when they could afford a ball each." Well, yes, but that's missing the point. They're not fighting over that ball because of some karmic urge to take someone else's ball, they're just playing that particular game by its rules.

[realpaladin]

Isn't this the kind of attitude that, in part, caused the current recession? If people weren't concerned so much about their status, they probably wouldn't be so irresponsible about using their credit cards and loans to live above their means. Money does need to be circulated in a capitalist environment, but I don't agree that it needs to be spent on status symbols.

But these motivational drives are also the same things that make other people DO care.

Do not confuse the, in hindsight, correctness or humanitarian value of actions with the things that make people start those actions.

A little above here an example of a junkie is given. While most quite easily accept that a junkie has a need for his drug, it is somehow more difficult to see that a lot of people have that same need, albeit less pronounced or less easy to see, to boost their self-image with the status symbols.

But a status symbol can be just as much a BMW as it can be a hemp bag from the Awareness Shop. The only difference between them would be the price tag.

I would even go so far as calling some of the nicks on this forum status symbols.

The Thingy Buddha guy clearly needs to flaunt his Buddhism, as I clearly need to establish my penchant for heavy metal and medieval armory.

*picks up Hoku's soapbox*
The thing is that Buddhism uses a simplified model of 'how it all works', but is by no means 'The Truth On How Things Work'.

And if you accept that, then I have no qualms with it.

It is analogous of Newtonian laws and the other laws of physics.

One model just works in a given context, but only an uninformed person would call it truth (notice I say 'uninformed' not unintelligent).

Strike the whole 'Truths' thing from Buddhism and call them 'Beliefs' and I am done.

My whole crusade against Buddhism at the moment is the same I would have (and indeed had) against CoS, Christianity, Shamanism etc. etc.

Picking things from these that do work is not a problem at all, but proclaiming that where we pick them from is the 'be all and end all' of truth *is*.

Because, and that would probably be my main flaw, I *do* care about other people, and I *do* see the misery they get in when they follow a religion or rather, when a religion prohibits them from advancing into a more palatable existence.

If any of the western people or more wealthy asian people want to wear Buddhism as a Ray-Ban and proclaim their life gets better, well, go ahead, we live in a consumerist, marketing driven and hype-prone society anyway and we seem to have a need to distinguish ourselves by any means necessary. But if it means that it stops millions of people from getting a better life because they really believe that their karma screws them up, then that is where I draw the line.

*gets of soapbox to teach a few kids over here Vedic Mathemathics (yeah, they do work but I do not hold the Ayur Veda to be true*

[Georg]

Nobody would buy a bigger car, for example, if you put them on a desert island where they'll never ever be able to show that car to anyone else. It's just a way to impress the group, and to achieve a certain status in that group.


So far I agree.

If we return to Maslow (hey, he rested enough already;)) the actual need involved is on level 3: "belonging". We do that crap to belong to a group. It's not just some illogical, self-destructive behaviour, it really serves a real need.


"Belonging" is perhaps not illogical in and of itself. But buying something like an expensive car just to belong is almost always illogical. Why would I or anybody want to be part of a group in which status depends, not on individual personality or lifestyle, but instead on how cool a car is deemed to be? And as far as at work, isn't a strong work ethic combined with good social skills going to give me a better chance at promotion than, say, happening to own a Jaguar? I think trying to impress people with really expensive material objects has more to do underlying insecurity issues than anything else. It's one thing to own a car just because you like it, but quite another to buy one to fit in.

And as far as it being easier to go through all that hassle just to fit in, I totally disagree. Even a moderately-priced nice car represents a huge time and effort investment for the vast majority of workers. I've been driving a fairly ugly green Ford Taurus for the last eight years that I bought used for $3000. So far, society hasn't shunned me and I think I fit in as well as anybody else. And it was fairly easy for me because I was able to pay it all off in cash so there were no monthly interest payments, and I only had to work part-time to be able to afford it. I don't see how this represents some kind of strenuous one-man crusade against the system; it was actually a lot easier not to buy into the television commercial-fueled culture that tells us we are inferior unless we buy the newest and best products.


I would not reduce the "shiny new car" to the level of the need "belonging to a group", but follow up on the "achieve a certain status in that group" mentioned above by Hans.
While the "belonging" might well be one reason, and the "underlying insecurity issues" mentioned by rain another one, the one that comes to my mind first is the "I wanna impress sexy women" theme, or in other words, it´s a method to gain an advantage in the evolutionary "reproductive success" game.

BTW, my car is 13 years old and has 275000 km on it........

Great thread, I have to say.

[HansMustermann]

Well, hmm, you do make a good point. Probably the 4'th level of the hierarchy ("Esteem") is a lot more relevant in that case.

[Georg]

Well, hmm, you do make a good point. Probably the 4'th level of the hierarchy ("Esteem") is a lot more relevant in that case.


I only partly agree again, sorry.....

[anectotal evidence alert]Esteem can play a role, but as far as I remember from my "I´m desperately and sometimes even successfully (quite a while ago......:() looking for a sex partner" period, the main thing was not esteem, but simply sex drive. [/anectotal evidence alert]

Is sex drive mentioned on the same level as esteem on the pyramid? I´d like to see the pyramid you are using, if you have a link for me, because it´s quite some time ago since I learned that stuff and the pyramids found on the net differ quite a bit.

[Dancing David]

Understood, I just enjoy arguing about discussing stuff, even if it turns out to be completely irrelevent to real life. :)


Yay!

[Dancing David]

OK, just because I have seen this in a couple of threads now and it's starting to bug me:


The fat bald guy isn't Buddha, his proper name is Hotei and he was a Buddhist monk. He pops up in a couple of theistic strains of Taoism and Buddhism as a god of Luck, hence the proliferation of his statues. Asians are all about luck.

Is he also the buddha Santa, the one who bought presents for the kids?

[Dancing David]

This thread puts both E's in the JREF!

Education and Entertainment.

[HansMustermann]

I only partly agree again, sorry.....

[anectotal evidence alert]Esteem can play a role, but as far as I remember from my "I´m desperately and sometimes even successfully (quite a while ago......:() looking for a sex partner" period, the main thing was not esteem, but simply sex drive. [/anectotal evidence alert]

Is sex drive mentioned on the same level as esteem on the pyramid? I´d like to see the pyramid you are using, if you have a link for me, because it´s quite some time ago since I learned that stuff and the pyramids found on the net differ quite a bit.

No, sex is IIRC on the bottom level. The primary biological/physiological needs. Highest priority stuff, with its own dedicated pathways.

[yy2bggggs]

Well, the other thing I'd like to complain about is the satisfaction of needs bit. That sounds a bit folkish to me, and a bit incorrect. It's not that you're driven towards fulfilling a need--rather, you're just driven; you have a drive to do something. That drive may or may not go away once you do it, may or may not be related to something you need. Phrased another way--fulfilling the need may or may not satiate you, and may or may not make you happy.

Your approach sounds outright detrimental to a typical situation that I would think the Buddhists are talking about--say, a person struggling with a weight problem. Maslow's hierarchy should be booted in this situation--as a tool, at best it's impotent, and worst case it's actually causing the issue. Something more akin to the very things you're complaining about Buddhism needs to take its place. Your shoe doesn't fit.

Now, your concept of Buddhism doesn't sound all that great either, but I suspect it's a Buddha made of straw. But I still have issues with naive hedonism. Something a bit more disciplined is needed.

[HansMustermann]

1. Hmm, I'm getting this impression... that you've read it as "be an animal driven only by instincts and biological urges."

Which is not exactly the case. In "Noble Truth 3", you'll notice I've even explicitly said "use your brains."

So, yes, while I am still convinced that the discomfort will be there until you satisfy the need, I also don't think you should basically turn off your cortex. If it wasn't important, evolution wouldn't have given you one.

Let me illustrate this on your eating example, as it's not a bad one. Yes, hunger is just the biological signal for the food need. Yes, I still think the easiest way out is to satisfy that need, i.e., eat. But I'm _not_ saying "be a mindless rabid beast driven only by hunger". If you have a weight problem, you can choose to eat a salad or some celery, which is so low-calory that you use more calories digesting it than you get out of it.

Basically, well, as I was saying, "use your brains" too. It's not there just as a glucose sink.

2. Well, while I do roughly believe in what I wrote all along, it's also partially a dose of taking the p*ss. As spelled out right in the OP.

I do _not_ think that something as complex as human behaviour can be summarized in the equivalent of a typewritten page. If we were as simple for that to suffice, we'd be too simple to be able to read that page.

I also don't really think anyone can give you universal, unquestionable truths. The whole "Noble Truth" part is jut taking the p*ss. The moment anything is an absolute truth, that's no longer science, that's the domain of religion.

Take that as, at best, something to think about or research further on your own. It is not absolute truth, it is oversimplified a _lot_, and i am _not_ the Buddha of science. Science by definition doesn't work by enlightenment and revelations.

So, well, you don't have to argue about my replacing one Buddha with another, because I never really intended that to start with.

3. It's also not intended to be a comprehensive or even accurate critique of Buddhism, that would take tomes. At least the OP is more or less just reusing the structure of that particular bit, but there's little more than that to it. See, taking the p*ss ;)

[Georg]

No, sex is IIRC on the bottom level. The primary biological/physiological needs. Highest priority stuff, with its own dedicated pathways.


Well, I just had a look on various of those pyramids and they differ in that point. Some have sex on the bottom level, some don´t mention it at all and one had it on the first and the fourth level........a bit confusing, I´d say.
I personally would not put sex on the same level as food, because even if you feel the need very strongly, I interpret the bottom level as stuff that is essential for your survival, and surviving without sex is, while admittedly unpleasant, a tiny bit easier than survival without food. But I´ll stop the derail now because I do not want to ruin your edutainment thread, will go back to lurk-mode and wait for my enlightenment..........or something :).

[yy2bggggs]

Which is not exactly the case. In "Noble Truth 3", you'll notice I've even explicitly said "use your brains."And I have the same issue with that as the appeal to "natural workings"--we're going to use our brains anyway, just like we're going to be natural. Use your brain doesn't tell you how to stick to a diet--it doesn't even help.

The person struggling with a weight problem needs a bit more specific advice than "use your brain", and let's face it. Simply being smart per se--simply knowing you shouldn't eat big macs, doesn't help you stick to a diet.

[HansMustermann]

Well, I just had a look on various of those pyramids and they differ in that point. Some have sex on the bottom level, some don´t mention it at all and one had it on the first and the fourth level........a bit confusing, I´d say.
I personally would not put sex on the same level as food, because even if you feel the need very strongly, I interpret the bottom level as stuff that is essential for your survival, and surviving without sex is, while admittedly unpleasant, a tiny bit easier than survival without food. But I´ll stop the derail now because I do not want to ruin your edutainment thread, will go back to lurk-mode and wait for my enlightenment..........or something :).

Well, it is also IMHO because "sex" is so vague a word.

If we're talking as in "having sex right now" or at least "having a hardon about that girl right now", that's a bottom level need, with its own specialized pathways. If we're talking about some other behaviour to have a chance at sex later, well, various higher levels make more sense.

[HansMustermann]

And I have the same issue with that as the appeal to "natural workings"--we're going to use our brains anyway, just like we're going to be natural. Use your brain doesn't tell you how to stick to a diet--it doesn't even help.

The person struggling with a weight problem needs a bit more specific advice than "use your brain", and let's face it. Simply being smart per se--simply knowing you shouldn't eat big macs, doesn't help you stick to a diet.

And I'm saying that the concern is just as misplaced as there. The OP is not a full algorithm for your daily routine, it's not even a code of ethics (as hinted when I discussed the "naturalistic fallacy" thing), it's just a starting point and/or something to keep in mind.

Even in Buddhism the 4 noble truths aren't the whole of it. It's the Eight-fold Path that actually tells you what to do. The 4 noble truths are just half-way axioms and half-way sales pitch.

In my case it's just a reminder that basically, "you're human, you'll never become anything else, and more importantly remember that so is everyone else." It's not even a full theory of human behaviour, much less the alpha and omega of what to do.

It doesn't replace all other human knowledge. (In your case, knowledge about nutrition and cardiovascular problems.)

[yy2bggggs]

And I'm saying that the concern is just as misplaced as there.I don't think my concern is misplaced. My concern is to bark at you for being incomplete, and you're saying you're incomplete. So we're probably good :).

But my other concern is that the stuff you have presented so far, in its incomplete form, isn't better than Buddhism, and I would even tend to think Buddhism would be superior to it. Now, once you fill in the blanks, you may have something better, but then again I'll step in and bark all the same if it's just as non-scientific.

But primarily, that's my point--to bark. I'm under the impression that this is what the thread's about anyway.

[AkuManiMani]

I don't think my concern is misplaced. My concern is to bark at you for being incomplete, and you're saying you're incomplete. So we're probably good :).

But my other concern is that the stuff you have presented so far, in its incomplete form, isn't better than Buddhism, and I would even tend to think Buddhism would be superior to it. Now, once you fill in the blanks, you may have something better, but then again I'll step in and bark all the same if it's just as non-scientific.

But primarily, that's my point--to bark. I'm under the impression that this is what the thread's about anyway.

All Hans needs are more well written insights and two-and-a-half millennia of genuine practitioners developing and evolving his ideas further ;)

[HansMustermann]

I don't think my concern is misplaced. My concern is to bark at you for being incomplete, and you're saying you're incomplete. So we're probably good :).

Well, indeed, then we can agree very quickly.

But my other concern is that the stuff you have presented so far, in its incomplete form, isn't better than Buddhism, and I would even tend to think Buddhism would be superior to it. Now, once you fill in the blanks, you may have something better, but then again I'll step in and bark all the same if it's just as non-scientific.

Good grief, which part of "taking the p*ss" did you misread as being a complete and better substitute for anything whatsoever? :p

Plus, as I was saying, even in Buddhism, the 4 noble truths are _not_ the whole of it. They're barely the 4 paragraph introduction of the assumptions. So assuming my 4 to also supersede everything else, well, that's a very tall order.

But primarily, that's my point--to bark. I'm under the impression that this is what the thread's about anyway.

Well, I'm certainly not going to stop you. I was just confused as to why do you "bark" about the lack of stuff which wasn't supposed to be in there, and, again, isn't there even in the Buddhist's 4 noble truths.

It's like if I wrote a parody of Genesis and you're complaining that the crucifixion isn't in there, or that it's not a better replacement of the whole book.

[Piscivore]

It's not even a full theory of human behaviour, much less the alpha and omega of what to do.

It doesn't replace all other human knowledge.

I guess I'm wondering then what makes you seem to think that the Buddhist version is or does so?

[Dancing David]

All Hans needs are more well written insights and two-and-a-half millennia of genuine practitioners developing and evolving his ideas further ;)

And adding a bunch of silly nonsense that he never talked about either.

I think that praying to Holy Maslow would be a good one for starters, and then praying to hans to help maslow hear your prayers.

Thne maybe the sale of indulgences on 'future needs' and 'needs wheels' that are spun to keep the needs being met.

;)

I know a cap and trade on needs and a Needs Exchange to get it on a free markets basis!

:D

[Dancing David]

I guess I'm wondering then what makes you seem to think that the Buddhist version is or does so?

Shh, hush your mouth this is not a Serious Thread.

;)

[HansMustermann]

I guess I'm wondering then what makes you seem to think that the Buddhist version is or does so?

... which is something I never claimed. I was writing that in answer to a completely different issue.

ETA: ah, there we go, from another of my messages in this same thread: "Even in Buddhism the 4 noble truths aren't the whole of it. It's the Eight-fold Path that actually tells you what to do. The 4 noble truths are just half-way axioms and half-way sales pitch." So I'm not claiming that the buddhist version is a comprehensive guide to humans either, no?

[realpaladin]

All Hans needs are more well written insights and two-and-a-half millennia of genuine practitioners developing and evolving his ideas further ;)

What is so special about the 2.5k years?

[Piscivore]

... which is something I never claimed. I was writing that in answer to a completely different issue.

ETA: ah, there we go, from another of my messages in this same thread: "Even in Buddhism the 4 noble truths aren't the whole of it. It's the Eight-fold Path that actually tells you what to do. The 4 noble truths are just half-way axioms and half-way sales pitch." So I'm not claiming that the buddhist version is a comprehensive guide to humans either, no?

Ah, okay. Thanks.

[AkuManiMani]

What is so special about the 2.5k years?

That's about how long Buddhism has been estimated to be around.

[AkuManiMani]

And adding a bunch of silly nonsense that he never talked about either.

I think that praying to Holy Maslow would be a good one for starters, and then praying to hans to help maslow hear your prayers.

Thne maybe the sale of indulgences on 'future needs' and 'needs wheels' that are spun to keep the needs being met.

;)

I know a cap and trade on needs and a Needs Exchange to get it on a free markets basis!

:D

LOL.

Yea, leave it to humans to take good ideas and crap all over them :D

[Nick227]

4. There Is No Shortcut

I wish I could tell you some handy-dandy miracle remedy for all your suffering and worries, but there isn't. As I was saying, you were born a human, and a human you shall die. Anyone who claims to have become waay different, is either a liar or deluded. Anyone who claims to be able to teach you to be anything else, is either a conman or deluded. Sorry.

There is a short-cut! Strive to develop self-awareness. Many people think they are in touch with their needs but are actually off-base. They are insufficiently aware of their thinking and feeling and other factors that drive their behaviour. Cyclical patterns develop as they go for what they think they need but it doesn't satisfy. They go for fame but they need acceptance. They get angry but they're actually in pain. They take the p*** but they actually want respect. Etc, etc.

Nick

[linusrichard]

OK, just because I have seen this in a couple of threads now and it's starting to bug me:


The fat bald guy isn't Buddha, his proper name is Hotei and he was a Buddhist monk. He pops up in a couple of theistic strains of Taoism and Buddhism as a god of Luck, hence the proliferation of his statues. Asians are all about luck.

He's sometimes described as a Buddha, though. I mean, not just popularly, but by serious people. Hotei is Maitreya, the Future Buddha. I think the line is that he's a Bodhisattva now, but will be a Buddha in the future, so some call him a Buddha based on that destiny, and others don't, based on that destiny not yet being fulfilled. Or something. I'm not sure if there's a controversy within Buddhism on the subject, but I know there are both views out there. I'm not sure that the difference is really more than semantic, though.

[Hokulele]

He's sometimes described as a Buddha, though. I mean, not just popularly, but by serious people. Hotei is Maitreya, the Future Buddha. I think the line is that he's a Bodhisattva now, but will be a Buddha in the future, so some call him a Buddha based on that destiny, and others don't, based on that destiny not yet being fulfilled. Or something. I'm not sure if there's a controversy within Buddhism on the subject, but I know there are both views out there. I'm not sure that the difference is really more than semantic, though.


Yeah, it is all pretty much semantics, but in the continental US, there does seem to be a confusion between Hotei and what Dancing David likes to refer to as the Alleged Historical Buddha. There is no such confusion in places where Buddhism is prevelant. If I were to go shopping in Japan for religious statues and ask for Buddha, I would get a serene, semi-Indian looking figure, not the fat, bald, laughing Hotei.

I guess if anyone wants to get super nitpicky, you would call Hotei "a Buddha" rather than "Buddha" or "the Buddha". He is actually quite a fun character. If anyone ever develops a "Major Religions of the World" RPG, I want to play Hotei!

[linusrichard]

Yeah, it is all pretty much semantics, but in the continental US, there does seem to be a confusion between Hotei and what Dancing David likes to refer to as the Alleged Historical Buddha. There is no such confusion in places where Buddhism is prevelant. If I were to go shopping in Japan for religious statues and ask for Buddha, I would get a serene, semi-Indian looking figure, not the fat, bald, laughing Hotei.
Yes. Even Maitreya isn't normally depicted as Hotei in Japan. For a long time I thought they were two separate figures. I knew the non-fat Maitreya and the fat Buddha from China were both Maitreya, but I didn't know Hotei was the same as the fat Buddha from China. I never saw Hotei in Japan in a Buddhist context, only as one of the shichifukujin.

I guess if anyone wants to get super nitpicky, you would call Hotei "a Buddha" rather than "Buddha" or "the Buddha".
Yes, I think "the Buddha" should either refer to Gautama Buddha or it should just be considered a mistake since it assumes that there is only one Buddha.
He is actually quite a fun character. If anyone ever develops a "Major Religions of the World" RPG, I want to play Hotei!
Oh, I think any of the shichifukujin would be pretty great!

[realpaladin]

That's about how long Buddhism has been estimated to be around.

So? Robbing and mugging have been around quite a bit longer, but the lessons learnt there do not help modern-day crook...

I fail to see what the length of time has to do with the depth of insight in a religion.

[HansMustermann]

First of all, I guess it was a horrible idea to mix stuff I actually think true, with a joke, and then expect everyone to guess right which is which. Sorry. I guess I need more focusing exercises on the beer or something ;)

That said, maybe I can spare the 2.5k years and clarify it better myself. Looking at some objections (e.g., yy2bggggs's) I'm starting to get an idea where I wasn't clear.

The list isn't supposed to be some kind of "this is the way to be perfect" list not "be human and you'll be perfect." (Not any more than Buddhism's "all life is suffering" tells you to suffer. It doesn't, btw.)

It's a reminder that you _are_ human and thus imperfect, fallible, flawed, subject to following your needs, and to making better or worse judgments based on them. "Use you brains", but don't exclude the possibility that at some times you won't, or won't have the complete data. And you'll never be above those needs, nor above being human.

The same applies to me, obviously.

And most importantly so is everyone else around you. You're less different than you might (or might not) think.

When you see people around you doing the wrong thing, or the dumb thing, don't be snotty, remember that you too are just as human. You did or will do worse mistakes or dumber decisions at some point or another.

Remember that they too were just following their natural brain signals. When you see, say, to reuse yy2bggggs's example, fat people with heart problems around you, well, they were eating to satisfy a need too, not because of some karma baggage or whatever else. (And on top of that, it might be modified by such things as, say, thyroid problems.)

Remember that a need doesn't go away by just imagining yourself to be above it. Hunger is hunger, and won't go away until you eat. To pretend it doesn't exist is suffering. Don't be too quick to blame those who chose not to.

Of course, they'll get to live (or die) with the results of their choices, just like you get to with yours. But that's just life. That's what being a human is all about.

[AkuManiMani]

I fail to see what the length of time has to do with the depth of insight in a religion.

It doesn't. They just tend to accumulate more ideological weight and nuance as they age :p

[Piscivore]

First of all, I guess it was a horrible idea to mix stuff I actually think true, with a joke, and then expect everyone to guess right which is which. Sorry. I guess I need more focusing exercises on the beer or something ;)

That said, maybe I can spare the 2.5k years and clarify it better myself. Looking at some objections (e.g., yy2bggggs's) I'm starting to get an idea where I wasn't clear.

The list isn't supposed to be some kind of "this is the way to be perfect" list not "be human and you'll be perfect." (Not any more than Buddhism's "all life is suffering" tells you to suffer. It doesn't, btw.)

It's a reminder that you _are_ human and thus imperfect, fallible, flawed, subject to following your needs, and to making better or worse judgments based on them. "Use you brains", but don't exclude the possibility that at some times you won't, or won't have the complete data. And you'll never be above those needs, nor above being human.

The same applies to me, obviously.

And most importantly so is everyone else around you. You're less different than you might (or might not) think.

When you see people around you doing the wrong thing, or the dumb thing, don't be snotty, remember that you too are just as human. You did or will do worse mistakes or dumber decisions at some point or another.

Remember that they too were just following their natural brain signals. When you see, say, to reuse yy2bggggs's example, fat people with heart problems around you, well, they were eating to satisfy a need too, not because of some karma baggage or whatever else. (And on top of that, it might be modified by such things as, say, thyroid problems.)

Remember that a need doesn't go away by just imagining yourself to be above it. Hunger is hunger, and won't go away until you eat. To pretend it doesn't exist is suffering. Don't be too quick to blame those who chose not to.

Of course, they'll get to live (or die) with the results of their choices, just like you get to with yours. But that's just life. That's what being a human is all about.

Yeah, that's Buddhism (as I understand it) Especially the bolded parts.

[realpaladin]

It doesn't. They just tend to accumulate more ideological weight and nuance as they age :p

True, I notice the same with highway-men; 'your cash is mine anyway, so do you annoy me enough to take your life?'

[Beerina]

On a non-woo, strictly biological basis, I disagree with your truths 3 and 4. Sometimes suffering is strictly self-generated (although I agree, based on truths 1 and 2), but it is possibe to cease suffering without satisfying a need by simply getting the **** over it already.

For example, let's say I am driving home from work and an earlier traffic accident has shut down the only road from where I was working to my house (I live on an island, so this is not only plausible, but true and has happened more often than I like). My "want" is to get home. By your set of truths, the only way to satisfy that want is to actually get home. However, if I just accept the fact that I won't be getting home any time soon, I will stop suffering.

As I mentioned in one of the umpteen other threads on this yesterday, one of the ways to get over it already that works for me is breath control meditation. I do not ascribe anything to that other than basic brain chemistry and cardiovascular control, but hey, it works, and I am much less stressed as a result. To directly contradict your point 4, it is a shortcut, albeit a perfectly natural one.

Biologically, we are driven to reduce the stimulus. Thirst, drinking reduces it (and rewards it on top of that with pleasure.) Same for hunger, as you have mentioned. Same for pursuing an orgasm.

Of course, if some of it is purely psychological (say, the traffic jam stress is brought on by wanting to be at home for The Game) then, yes, you can just "cheat and wave it away". But not if being stuck is stressful because your air conditioner isn't working.

[Lisa Simpson]

Other posts moved here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146018)

[HansMustermann]

Yeah, that's Buddhism (as I understand it) Especially the bolded parts.

Well, that's kinda the point: it's Buddhism as _you_ understand it.

In practice, like any other religion, it can be interpreted in thousands of ways. E.g., it also has been widely interpreted before as basically: if I'm rich, it's my reward for a virtuous past life, and if you're dying of hunger and cold by the roadside, well, you earned it and I hope you learn something for the next time from it. (Again, see Tibetan monks lording over the hungry serfs with not the faintest thought of trying to help them with more than preaching.) In effect, just an excuse for elitism and injustice, and exactly the contrary of what I wrote there.

Or that it's not my place to do something for those in need or distress, because they'll never learn their lesson if I interfere with it. Or simply that it's more important to observe your own breath than observe what's happening to others; after all the Buddha wouldn't have told you to, if it was something you're not supposed to practice as much as possible. Or that if you're suffering, well, you should just learn to be above it. Or that you should feel detached from the world and unsupported by the world (hey, it's even in the official canon) and thus you'll never achieve enlightenment if you start worrying about the others. Or, again, just about anything else you wish.

And the really advanced ones pick a radically different meaning for each situation. Sometimes even in the same paragraph. (By "really advanced" meaning almost everyone.)

You can't have a major religion (_any_ religion) without it being like Play Doh or Lego. You pick your own pieces or colours and construct your own thing out of it. One makes a pretty dove, one makes a hawk with bloody talons, and one makes a model of Vlad The Impaler and a few impaled serfs. And each could argue with a straight face that, yeah, but his thing is the One True Meaning of Play Doh and the others are just unenlightened misunderstandings.

And I'll return to Tibet again. It's pretty meaningless to have a reminder that you're human too if you also have _plenty_ of rope to hang yourself from the "yeah, but I'm more special than the others" excuse.

What _I'm_ trying to say there is pretty much remove that excuse: no, you're a lot less special than you'd think. You don't have a karma excuse, there is no enlightenment to be obtained by ignoring the world, etc.

Again, I'm not just picking on Buddhism there, because frankly I don't see it as any more special than any other religion either way.

E.g., Christianity too can be interpreted equally as anything from "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" all the way to "burn the witch" and "slaughter the infidels." In fact, the Crusaders found it in their pious christian heart to not only slaughter the infidels, but also the very inhabitants of Jerusalem (many of them christian too) they were supposed to free from the Saracens.