Happiness Paradox?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
SatiMonster
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:36 pm

Happiness Paradox?

Post by SatiMonster »

Hello everyone,

I'm very new to the dhamma and, while reading a piece by Ajahn Chah, was dismayed to read this text (from "The Middle Way Within"):

"We people don't want suffering, we want happiness. But in fact happiness is just a refined form of suffering. Suffering itself is the coarse form. You can compare them to a snake. The head of the snake is unhappiness, the tail of the snake is happiness. The head of the snake is really dangerous, it has the poisonous fangs. If you touch it, the snake will bite straight away. But never mind the head, even if you go and hold onto the tail, it will turn around and bite you just the same, because both the head and the tail belong to the one snake."

However, in other readings, I have gleaned that achieving happiness is, in fact, one goal of studying the dhamma. Should I perhaps construe Chah's "happiness" as "sensual desire" rather than the broader "the state of being content"? Because to reject the latter seems counter to everything that we, as humans, are born (and subsequently conditioned) to feel.

I'm sorry if this is an "amateur hour" question, but Google wasn't helpful.

Thank you! :buddha2:
Q: How do you eat an elephant? A: One bite at a time.
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by JohnK »

I think you are already very close to understanding correctly. "Pleasant feeling" based on sensual (and mental) contact is craved after and is often mistaken for happiness, but it is not the path to a deeper satisfaction and happiness. Because sensuaI contact can be pleasant, that is the gratification; because it is impermanent, that is the danger; the dhamma is the escape from the craving to a deeper happiness. I suspect others will reply with sutta references (and perhaps corrections to my simple reply).
And do recall that knowing suffering is the First Noble Truth, so that is a necessary task.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by JohnK »

Okay, I'll post a link to this one, Magandiya Sutta -- very powerful.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Less powerful simile: You don't want to suffer from the itch of a bug bite.
You want the "happiness" of scratching. You scratch and have some happiness (pleasant vedana).
But the happiness is very temporary and makes the situation worse!
Read the linked sutta for a much more powerful simile.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
SatiMonster
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:36 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by SatiMonster »

JohnK wrote:I think you are already very close to understanding correctly. "Pleasant feeling" based on sensual (and mental) contact is craved after and is often mistaken for happiness, but it is not the path to a deeper satisfaction and happiness. Because sensuaI contact can be pleasant, that is the gratification; because it is impermanent, that is the danger; the dhamma is the escape from the craving to a deeper happiness. I suspect others will reply with sutta references (and perhaps corrections to my simple reply).
And do recall that knowing suffering is the First Noble Truth, so that is a necessary task.
Thank you, John! So you also think that the "happiness" in the Ajahn Chah quote did not refer to (what I find to be) the abiding peace brought by study of and adherence to the dhamma, but instead a more worldly form?
Q: How do you eat an elephant? A: One bite at a time.
User avatar
katavedi
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by katavedi »

Hello SatiMonster,

It seems to me that Ajahn Chah is referring to ordinary worldly happiness, which is a happiness based on conditions. Since it's a happiness based on impermanent conditions, when those conditions change, suffering arises.

As one develops the path, one gains deeper levels of happiness that come from letting go, rather than from grasping. There is the happiness of blamelessness, from training oneself in virtue. Based on virtue, one can develop the happiness of samadhi (the absorption states known as the jhanas, characterized by physical and mental pleasure, then contentment, then complete peace). Based on samadhi, one can develop the happiness of insight, seeing one's experience in a clearer and more accurate way, allowing one to let go of clinging to impermanent things. Based on insight, one can know the happiness of nibbana, the ending of greed, aversion, and ignorance -- the ending of the causes for dukkha to arise. This is the happiness of freedom, which is the purpose of the Buddha's teaching. It's a happiness that's not based on conditions being right; it's based on letting go of conditions.

Most people come to practice Buddhism for the purpose of happiness, but the Buddha was actually teaching the way to freedom. Happiness is a by-product of that freedom, but is not the goal. If dukkha were compared to darkness and happiness were the light from a twinkling star, nibbana/freedom would be the sun.

Kind wishes,
katavedi
“But, Gotamī, when you know of certain things: ‘These things lead to dispassion, not to passion; to detachment, not to attachment; to diminution, not to accumulation; to having few wishes, not to having many wishes; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to socializing; to the arousing of energy, not to indolence; to simple living, not to luxurious living’ – of such things you can be certain: ‘This is the Dhamma; this is the Discipline; this is the Master’s Teaching.’”
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by JohnK »

I can't speak for him, but...
I think what he was getting at with the head/tail of the snake is that grasping and aversion are, to use another way less powerful simile, like two sides (head/tail) of the same coin of tanha (literally thirst in Pali) usually translated as grasping and leading to suffering (2nd Noble truth).
(I don't know what Thai words were used by him that were translated as suffering and happiness in this case nor who he was talking to that might have led him to use the words he used rather than (perhaps) words that would more typically be translated as grasping and aversion.)
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by JohnK »

katavedi wrote:...
Nicely said, Katavedi (as usual).
But don't let it go to your head!
Glad to see you posting again. :anjali:
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
katavedi
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by katavedi »

JohnK wrote:Glad to see you posting again.
Thank you, my friend. I had been on retreat for a while, working toward just what we're discussing here. ;)
“But, Gotamī, when you know of certain things: ‘These things lead to dispassion, not to passion; to detachment, not to attachment; to diminution, not to accumulation; to having few wishes, not to having many wishes; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to socializing; to the arousing of energy, not to indolence; to simple living, not to luxurious living’ – of such things you can be certain: ‘This is the Dhamma; this is the Discipline; this is the Master’s Teaching.’”
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by SarathW »

kathavedi put it nicely.
But I can put it in another way.
Buddha said that there are many kind of happiness.
Sensual pleasures are the lowest and the Nibbana is the highest.
There are many kind of happiness in between.

Eg: Sensual pleasures, giving, observing precepts. Rupavacara Jhana, Arupavacara Jhana, ..............Nibbana.

Each happiness is higher than the former.
In other words every former is a suffering till you attain Nibbana.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by JohnK »

MN59, Bahuvedaniya Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Loftier and loftier pleasures.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by SarathW »

Thanks John
That is the Sutta I was referring to.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
SatiMonster
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:36 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by SatiMonster »

JohnK wrote:I can't speak for him, but...
I think what he was getting at with the head/tail of the snake is that grasping and aversion are, to use another way less powerful simile, like two sides (head/tail) of the same coin of tanha (literally thirst in Pali) usually translated as grasping and leading to suffering (2nd Noble truth).
(I don't know what Thai words were used by him that were translated as suffering and happiness in this case nor who he was talking to that might have led him to use the words he used rather than (perhaps) words that would more typically be translated as grasping and aversion.)
True; I forgot about the lack of nuance that could result from translation.

Thank you all very much!
Q: How do you eat an elephant? A: One bite at a time.
User avatar
SatiMonster
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:36 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by SatiMonster »

JohnK wrote:MN59, Bahuvedaniya Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Loftier and loftier pleasures.
Thanks; this Sutta was extremely helpful! :buddha1:
Q: How do you eat an elephant? A: One bite at a time.
User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by cjmacie »

Postby katavedi » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:10 pm

"Happiness" is apparently being used for "sukha" here. The English word "happy" actually is deeply related to luck, to circumstances, as in "hapless", "happen". So it goes well as in "…Ajahn Chah is referring to ordinary worldly happiness…"

The further, deeper levels of "happiness" talked about might work better with some other word, as the attainments referred to have to do with solidly gained skills rather than luck or 'happenstance' – at the endpoint, as mentioned, is freedom from circumstances. (Using "happiness" is OK, however, as it means whatever is intended, not necessarily by its etymology.)

I would just point out that the Pali word 'sukha' also has a complete range of levels of meaning – from the simplest pleasant sensation (bare vedana) through to the sukha that associates with nibbana. (Thanissaro Bhikku, in the last chapter of "The Paradox of Becoming", cataloging descriptions of nibbana, points out that whereas most characterizations of nibbana are in terms of what its NOT, the term 'sukha' is considered an associated quality too, as it's freedom, release, unbinding from 'dukkha'.

In the Bahuvedaniya Sutta, 'sukha' is the word the Buddha uses for all those levels, rendered by Bhikkhu Bodhi as "pleasure". In the last sentence of the Buddha's words, it's explicit:
‘na kho, āvuso, bhagavā sukhaṃyeva vedanaṃ sandhāya sukhasmiṃ paññapeti; api ca, āvuso, yattha yattha sukhaṃ upalabbhati yahiṃ yahiṃ taṃ taṃ tathāgato sukhasmiṃ paññapetī’’’ti.
… He says he uses 'sukha' ("pleasure") not just for pleasant feeling (vedana), but for everywhich case, where-ever it's found, through all those levels described.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by chownah »

cjmacie wrote:Postby katavedi » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:10 pm

"Happiness" is apparently being used for "sukha" here. The English word "happy" actually is deeply related to luck, to circumstances, as in "hapless", "happen". So it goes well as in "…Ajahn Chah is referring to ordinary worldly happiness…"
...........
...........
...............
.....
You say that the paragraph above was posted by katavedi » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:10 pm. I'm trying to find where katavedi posted it and I have not been able to find it. Can you point me to where you got that text?
chownah
Post Reply