XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:14:50 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Fred C. Dobbs"  wrote   
   >> On 5/29/2010 12:09 AM, Dutch wrote:   
   >   
   >[..]   
   >   
   >>>>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful. Existence   
   >>>>> itself, or "being", is blissful.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature   
   >>   
   >> You're just restating your assertion.   
   >   
   >It's a point of view, your opinion is that "being" is by default a neutral   
   >state, mine is that it is blissful.   
   >   
   >> A boulder exists.  Is it in a state of bliss?   
   >   
   >I don't know, my impression is that boulders have no experiential existence.   
   >When a human exists he is a very different organic process than that of a   
   >rock.   
   >   
   >>>> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of contentment.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal,   
   >>> winning a game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from   
   >>> acheivement in the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state   
   >>> reached through sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping   
   >>> breathing, acceptance, freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a native   
   >>> Western concept.   
   >>   
   >> Of *course* it's a native western concept!  The word itself has ancient   
   >> Germanic roots that predate western contact with Eastern philosophies that   
   >> include any of the practices you describe.   
   >   
   >Never heard of that, interesting, however there is a difference between the   
   >peace one feels through the attainment of inner balance and the   
   >gratification one feels through the attainment of outward goals. The two are   
   >different but not incompatible. There's no scorecard or degree to tell the   
   >world you are peaceful, but they are aware of it nonetheless.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Every dictionary definition available defines bliss as meaning /extreme/   
   >> joy or satisfaction.  In economics, the bliss point is the point at which   
   >> you have exactly the right amount of something you desire - your "utility"   
   >> is at a maximum, and an epsilon less *or* more of the good would reduce   
   >> your happiness.   
   >   
   >Attainment of worldly desires leads to satisfaction/gratification, an ego   
   >boost, but that is not the same as what one derives from those practices we   
   >were talking about.   
   >   
   >> Synonyms of bliss are beatitude, blessedness, cheer, cheerfulness,   
   >> felicity, gladness, happiness, joy, joyfulness; antonyms are grief,   
   >> misery, sorrow, unhappiness, upset.   
   >>   
   >> Existence is not bliss - not in any widely accepted meaning of the word   
   >> bliss.  Existence is neutral, but it is a condition necessary to   
   >   
   >Maybe it would be more clear if I used the word "being" or "living" instead   
   >of existence.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> The events and circumstances of existence will determine whether your   
   >>>> existence is miserable, blah, blissful, or some other gradation.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yeah, we're not talkin about the same thing, "bliss" is not goal   
   >>> oriented happiness, it's more like inner peace.   
   >>   
   >> It isn't.  Look in any dictionary you wish.  You are giving the word a   
   >> meaning that 99% of English speakers who know the word do not recognize.   
   >   
   >Maybe "bliss" *can* be used in the other contexts, but I have heard it used   
   >most often to refer to a spiritual connectedness as opposed to the feeling   
   >one gets by hitting a long drive or winning a poker tournament.Wikipedia   
   >says "Bliss is a constant state of mind undisturbed by gain or loss." which   
   >suggests that it is not usually used to refer to the satisfaction or   
   >happiness derived from attaining worldy acheivements.   
   >   
   >>>>> Unfortunately we are programmed from an   
   >>>>> early age to believe that just being is not enough, we have to be   
   >>>>> "doing" something, "going" somewhere, "attaining" something, never   
   >>>>> content with what we have, where we are, what we are.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I think that's human nature - nothing to do with programming. "Just   
   >>>> being" strikes me as horrible. I constantly try to teach my son that   
   >>>> working to achieve something is the best thing in life. *Doing* is the   
   >>>> essence of human existence, and working hard to do something well is   
   >>>> the best possible way to spend time.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yea, you're a Western type guy. Doing useful things is good, but I do   
   >>> not believe that it is the essence of existence any more than hunting   
   >>> for prey is the essence of being a lion, or drinking in the sun is the   
   >>> essence of being a rose, it is the work a lion does to support itself,   
   >>> but the essence of a lion is seen when he sits soaking up the sun too.   
   >>> It is "being" a lion.   
   >>   
   >> Humans are purposeful beings.  We naturally aspire to more than mere   
   >> existence.  The first primitive to fashion a wheel could have told you   
   >> that.   
   >   
   >I never suggested that we are not goal oriented beings, but there is another   
   >level to human existence/consciousness that is not directly related to the   
   >attainment of goals.   
   >   
   >> I don't know anyone who wants to feel overworked, but most people would   
   >> prefer to work fairly hard at something they enjoy doing for far longer   
   >> than they would want to sit around in a chair relaxing.  Even most   
   >> people's play is purposeful, and something at which they wish to improve,   
   >> even if not necessarily excel.   
   >   
   >What I am saying is not particularly related to being in motion vs sitting   
   >in an easy chair, many spiritual practices are done while in motion, like   
   >Tai Chi.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>> We are are so   
   >>>>> focused on the past and the future, and how we stack up against others   
   >>>>> it's no wonder life is stressful.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't think it has anything to do with stacking up against others.   
   >>>> It's stacking up against yourself, striving to do better today than   
   >>>> you did yesterday - that's what makes life worth living.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's nothing wrong with striving for improvement, I do it too, but   
   >>> what about when you don't improve at things, what if you get worse? It   
   >>> inevitably gets down to basing your self-image on out-doing others, ego.   
   >>   
   >> No it doesn't.  I got to be a reasonably good recreational golfer in the   
   >> mid 1990s, usually shooting in the mid 80s with a couple of scores in the   
   >> low 80s; never broke 80.  It all stopped when I got married and had a   
   >> child, and I couldn't justify the time spent on the course or at the range   
   >> any more.  My game deteriorated a lot, but I still was better than most of   
   >> my friends.  But I virtually stopped anyway, because the deterioration of   
   >> my play from its previous level was too frustrating.   
   >   
   >Golf is a great example of an activity with a strong "spiritual" (I don't   
   >like to use that word because it has negative connotations) component. You   
   >can practice all you want but if you are not in calm state with a clear mind   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)