Happiness Paradox?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by chownah »

chownah wrote:
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
cjmacie,
I'm still hoping for a reply.
chownah
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by mikenz66 »

Perhaps he means this post:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 21#p386221

However, that post only contains part of what appears to be a quotation... :thinking:

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
katavedi
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by katavedi »

chownah wrote:
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
I think cjmacie just put that reference to my post to indicate that s/he was replying to that particular post. The rest of the text is cjmacie's discussion of the appropriateness of my use of the English word "happiness" in my post.
“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.’”
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by chownah »

katavedi wrote:
chownah wrote:
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
I think cjmacie just put that reference to my post to indicate that s/he was replying to that particular post. The rest of the text is cjmacie's discussion of the appropriateness of my use of the English word "happiness" in my post.
Thanks for posting. So this is just cjmacie's thoughts and not yours I guess.
chownah
User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by cjmacie »

postby chownah » Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:57 am

"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."


In the post Re: Happiness Paradox? (#p386221) – 5th post in this discussion thread
Postby katavedi » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:10 pm)
The first paragraph there:
"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."

My post further expands on katavedi's other two paragraphs, referring to the same sequence of levels of attainment of sukha (as freedom from dukkha), but using the word "sukha" instead of "happiness", as the latter, IMO, carries more limiting connotations, as a word so commonly used by people to depict their fondest cravings.

Hoping that's clearer.

I heard or read once that dukkha and sukha are compounded from "du-" / "su-" and "-kha". The latter part was said to relate to something like the axle-hole in a wheel – perhaps related to the word "cakka" (as in "dhamma-wheel", or in the Pali for the world-turning monarch -- something like that). "Du-", also seen as "do-" as in domanassa (mental displeasure) means not quite right, perverse, difficult, bad -- related to Greek prefix "dus-", as in "dysfunction", "dysmenorrhea". "Su-", as also "so-" as in somanassa (mental pleasure) means good, well, thorough, happily -- related to Greek "eu-" as in "eugenics", "eudaimonia" (btw the latter a term that Stephen Batchelor uses for his sense of true Buddhist happiness).

So the image I've associated with dukkha (whether the etymology is valid or not) is that of an out-of-shape wheel wobbling along uncomfortably, maybe like a flat tire (tyre). And sukha as a perfectly balanced, smoothly spinning wheel, perhaps with large cushiony tires, giving a nice even ride, even over a bumpy road.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Happiness Paradox?

Post by DNS »

A quote I received from a monk the other day, who sends daily quotes by email:
If it is only happiness that you seek,
you will never be satisfied.
It reminded me of this old thread, how people assume Buddhism's goal is happiness, but it has to be differentiated from worldly happiness and supramundane happiness. Worldly happiness is fleeting and requires one to continually seek out new and more happiness, never being quenched.

Buddhism's goal is more about ending suffering, equanimity and the rest of the brahma-viharas, not really happiness (at least in the worldly sense), but a higher-happiness of bliss, free of suffering.
Post Reply