But people just ignore it anyway. Which is precisely the problem. Why address things when you can either ignore them or you can fight against yourself, but in both scenarios you always go round and round in the same loop.
In the current global consciousness, happiness is attributed to material possessions, which ironically is also what makes you unhappy.
Except, eschewing desire altogether which, as I understand it is the goal of Buddhism, isn’t finding happiness it’s merely swapping overt suffering due to unrequited desire for absolute numbness.
In vajrayana buddhism, you work with the knowledge that you have everything to be happy already inside you, and all you need to do is to stop limiting yourself and experience the inherent bliss of all experience. You take everything as an expression of the limitless potential of space to manifest, and you enjoy everything just because it can happen. Your happiness does not depend on anything external so you enjoy things as they come, but don't attach yourself and your wellbeing to an ever changing external world. Enlightenment is an absolute bliss filled experience, not a state of numbness.
I cannot enjoy the suffering of my children or the torture and murder of the innocent because "they can happen" which I'd be required to do in this so called "enlightenment." What you're describing is pure selfishness and taking pleasure in evil. That's horrific.
> Your happiness does not depend on anything external so you enjoy things as they come, but don't attach yourself and your wellbeing to an ever changing external world.
Which is total detachment from other people too and their needs and for making the external world better since any attempt to do so would be admitting that things in the external world can really be bad. That's not a recipe for happiness, it's a recipe for total loneliness and, if seriously adopted by enough people, societal collapse. We're a social species, demonstrably. Buddhism as you describe it appears to be a rejection of the real evils in the world, passions, charity, and society.
> Enlightenment is an absolute bliss filled experience, not a state of numbness.
"Bliss" built on the enjoyment of evil is infinitely worse than mere numbness.
Right. You won't enjoy those things. You just won't add additional unnecessary suffering. Buddhism doesn't teach to enjoy the terrible things about the world, nor to ignore them by some kind of numbness. The whole point is that there is an additional layer of suffering that is entirely optional. This is what they refer to as Dukkha in the "Four Noble Truths".
> Which is total detachment from other people too and their needs and for making the external world better since any attempt to do so would be admitting that things in the external world can really be bad. That's not a recipe for happiness, it's a recipe for total loneliness and, if seriously adopted by enough people, societal collapse. We're a social species, demonstrably. Buddhism as you describe it appears to be a rejection of the real evils in the world, passions, charity, and society. >"Bliss" built on the enjoyment of evil is infinitely worse than mere numbness.
I think your parents' comments admit of more charitable readings.
> "Bliss" built on the enjoyment of evil is infinitely worse than mere numbness.
It's a common misconception that you would be happy BECAUSE people are suffering around you. The goal is to separate the content of your experience from your ability to experience. Therefore you are in a natural state of bliss REGARDLESS of any external circumstance.
You can absolutely notice the suffering of others and it comes with a deep sense of compassion when you do. Since you understand that everyone shares in the same potential and that the suffering is caused by them not being able to see that, you are more effective at helping because you don't get caught up in the trip. The best way to help others is to show them the way out of that suffering, to give people the tools to also realize their potential.
The maxim in this kind of buddhism is to better yourself to be of most benefit to ALL sentient beings.
But yeah, if you are actually interested, it is best done through practice. Meditation has incredibly improved my experience of the world and made me more effective at dealing with difficult situations because I can have the distance to observe emotions as they appear and decide whether to use the energy they inherently express or let them fade back to where they came from without acting clumsily.
Is it?
I see far more people saying that material possessions don't make one happy than that they do. How many movies, novels, etc, are about living for oneself rather than possessions? How many say the opposite?
IMO everyone knows that material possessions are nice to have, in the sense that we all want what we want, but also that they do not produce happiness. Does anyone say otherwise?
Yeah, I agree with you in that it is "common knowledge" that material possessions != happiness. However, I do question that we actually believe this on a level deeper than just an intellectual exercise. I think that it would be better to be a bit more precise about what we mean by "material possession". For example: would the fulfillment of the desire to be in a love relationship count as "material possession"? I would say it does, in the sense that the expectation is that an external element will fulfill us, because there is something that we currently lack to feel 'complete'. So we might think: "if only I had this relationship with this beautiful person" or "if only I could buy a bigger house", the abstract form being "if only I could have X or Y experience", etc. In this sense I would say that this paradigm is very much the rule in our attempt for happiness, and even if people acknowledge intellectually that it isn't so, it is actually implicit in their worldview and behavior.
This is a rather extreme position since beyond a certain level material possessions to not contribute to happiness but won't necessarily make you unhappy. Likewise, a complete lack of material possessions will probably make you unhappy.
Only if you take a rather extreme interpretation of that position.
For the sake of argument, assume that material possessions increase happiness (or decrease unhappiness) up to a certain point, then level out, then decrease happiness as you enter a zone of "can never be satisfied" or "always comparing to ever-shifting goalposts". The irony is there, even though your statement may still be true:
> beyond a certain level material possessions [do] not contribute to happiness but won't necessarily make you unhappy. Likewise, a complete lack of material possessions will probably make you unhappy.
But that starts to feel pedantic. Perhaps a more real-world example would be smartphones. We all want to have them, but it really seems to me at least that many people would be happier if they did not have them.
Then there's always the case where once you have too much stuff, you spend more time worrying about losing it, and you find it difficult to benefit from contact with your former friends who have much less.
The best part about this approach is that no scary monsters are going to come and get you. The only monster you'll encounter is that voice in your mind that never ceases to blabber on about things.
And it's not easy. Nothing is when it comes to being quiet. If you struggle with behavior or have emotional tendencies - learning to be quiet is a humbling experience.
What to expect? A lot more breathing room, not only in your mind but also in your life. Doing this process is the same as installing a window in a room that has been windowless for a hundred years. Fresh air, natural light, and a much broader view on life.
Do you have any references like books, lectures, blogs or any information sources on these practices and the buddhist principles behind it?