Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Define Happiness Philosophically?

  1. #21

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    Dear Yajvan ji,
    Namasthe!

    I always found it trite (lacking originality or freshness) to say happy birthday
    Usually "Freshness" comes from Mindfulness. Mindfulness comes from being alert and present !

    The next time we say say that ... we may do it the Buddhist way. Smile to ourselves , see ourselves as the Presence and recognize that the other person is also no different and then ... with a "Total" or "Whole" heart ... wish him or her a good day. In total Mindfulness. The Buddhist style
    Something on the lines of this :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUxFNkISnU

    After-all all our shanthi mantras are wishes for the entire community ...may we both be happy May all be happy!!


    Love!
    Silence
    Come up, O Lions, and shake off the delusion that you are a sheep

  2. #22
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post
    Have you guys ever thought about happiness from our philosophical angle?
    I will approach this from the soteriological angle. There is a dispute between Naiyayikas and Advaitins about the status of the jiva in moksha.

    Naiyayikas define the state negatively. i.e. moksha is absence of pain. So, they interpret happiness as *absence of pain*. Unfortunately, for the Naiyayikas, this opens them up to the charge that no one will work towards moksha if all that it offers is an *absence of pain* as opposed to a positive state of *pleasure*. In fact, in moksha, the jiva, as per Nyaya, is without any cognition whatsoever.

    The Advaitins argue that the state of moksha is a positive state of pleasure. The Naiyayikas charge them with inconsistency. The syllogism is as follows.

    P1. Any desire for pleasure causes karma.

    P2. Moksha is a state of pleasure.

    C1. Desire for moksha causes karma.

    P3. Anything that causes karma makes moksha more distant.

    C2. Desire for moksha makes moksha more distant.

    Hence, according to the Naiyayika, the Advaitin's moksha is unattainable.

    I suggest anyone interested in this dialectic to read Atmatattvaviveka by Udayana.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    Thank you wondermonk ji for the points and conclusions. They are thought provoking ...

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    I will approach this from the soteriological angle.

    The syllogism is as follows.

    P1. Any desire for pleasure causes karma.

    P2. Moksha is a state of pleasure.

    C1. Desire for moksha causes karma.

    P3. Anything that causes karma makes moksha more distant.

    C2. Desire for moksha makes moksha more distant.

    Hence, according to the Naiyayika, the Advaitin's moksha is unattainable.

    I suggest anyone interested in this dialectic to read Atmatattvaviveka by Udayana.
    Anirudh...

  4. #24
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    Namaste RasaKali ji

    Very beautiful yet simple and straight to the point..... I have highlighted the sentence that moved me...Thank you...

    Quote Originally Posted by RasaKali View Post
    Hindu Philosophy or Darshan says... life is not starting or ending up with the body, but that is a page only. The page is to do work by taking decisions or in simple words, by karmas. Karma ends up with karmafal or result or fruits of work. This fruits are to be eaten or the karmafal is to be accepted gladly, as that provides the experience. This experience sums up to evaluate the illusion or Maya, and once this illusion is properly evaluated, the inside soul is seen. Then one discovers that he or she is the supersoul alone. The happiness or sorrow is thus the fruits of works only, accepting which is going to open the eternal door of happiness and joy. So Hindu darshan says, its worthless to make sorrow as joy is the destiny.
    Anirudh...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    Namaste Yajvan ji,

    I have the habit of reading Shree Chinmayananda quotes.

    He who depends on chances and situations to be happy, is a Sansari.


    If possible please explain the above mentioned quote especially the Sansari part.

    This quote means If my ability to be happy is not dependent chances and situations, then I am no more a Sansari.

    I have not understood the meaning of Samsarin completely. Besides other meanings I think saMsArin means "attached to mundane existence".

    Most of the religious teachings directly or indirectly suggest to free ourselves from saMsAra Bandhana (bondage of Sansara)

    As this is related my original question, can you tell us

    What is saMsAra ?

    What is saMsAra Bandhana?

    By relinquishing Sansara Bandhana Can I be still be loving father, and a responsible citizen?
    Anirudh...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    namaste
    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    I will approach this from the soteriological angle. There is a dispute between Naiyayikas and Advaitins about the status of the jiva in moksha.

    Naiyayikas define the state negatively. i.e. moksha is absence of pain. So, they interpret happiness as *absence of pain*. Unfortunately, for the Naiyayikas, this opens them up to the charge that no one will work towards moksha if all that it offers is an *absence of pain* as opposed to a positive state of *pleasure*. In fact, in moksha, the jiva, as per Nyaya, is without any cognition whatsoever.

    The Advaitins argue that the state of moksha is a positive state of pleasure. The Naiyayikas charge them with inconsistency. The syllogism is as follows.

    P1. Any desire for pleasure causes karma.

    P2. Moksha is a state of pleasure.

    C1. Desire for moksha causes karma.

    P3. Anything that causes karma makes moksha more distant.

    C2. Desire for moksha makes moksha more distant.

    Hence, according to the Naiyayika, the Advaitin's moksha is unattainable.

    I suggest anyone interested in this dialectic to read Atmatattvaviveka by Udayana.
    I'd like to ask for your opinion and clarification on a few items... this is not a challenge , but a request of your views coming though your knowledge set.

    You mention any desire for pleasure creates karma. Does that infer that I can apply the opposite ? Any desire for pain will not create karma ?
    Could we not say 'any desire for' and leave it at that ? And if this is true is it the actual desire itself that is the mischief maker or something else?

    Also can you offer some reference to the advaitin view that moksa is a positive state of pleasure. I have not yielded the same view from my readings. Again, not a challenge, but a request so I may read the words and filter them though my knowledge set.

    And, if you have time, would you offer the other schools' views of this end state if you find the time. I think the reader would take interest to compare and contrast what one school thinks vs. the other on this matter. This is not a homework assignment, but a request if you find time and interest.

    iti sivam
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  7. #27
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    namaste

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post

    I have the habit of reading Shree Chinmayananda quotes.
    He who depends on chances and situations to be happy, is a Sansari.
    What is saMsAra ?
    What is saMsAra Bandhana?
    The notion of this saMsAra is straight forward by definition, yet has deeper significance when taken apart.

    SaMsAra is the cycle of birth-after-birth. This has two prongs to it. The first is obvious. One is confined/stuck in the cycle of birth after birth. The other prong is less obvious. Birth after birth takes on a different notion in the school of yoga and it too is two pronged. We will only look at one now , as the post is not on yoga.
    Birth after birth in this 2nd notion suggests thought-after-thought. The cycle is constant. That is, wave after wave the mind is filled with thought. The wave is predominant and the ocean ( pure awareness) from which is rises is not revealed or said more accurately ignored. The person is stuck as the wave. Hence he or she is still the saMsAri, sailing the ocean of thoughts, endless thoughts. It takes one from here to there, the boat with no rudder. Sometimes the thoughts have no purpose; it is thoughts for the sake of thoughts. Who then is the master here ? The mind.
    Now if we had the time and patience to consider this we would find from where these thoughts come, but we will not pursue it at this time.

    When the mind cycles though all these thoughts the birth and promotion of the various guNa-s continue. At times, the predominant guNa is tamas, then rajas, then at other times sattva may dominate for a short time. All three are aways there, but it is common for one to dominate over the other two ( see for your self during any given day).

    One last idea: the saMsAri identifies with the body - this is 'me'. This person of age, race, place, value system - or the ego-centric person. The frame of reference of 'me' is differentiated awareness - that of division and separateness. The world of things, places and people with no common tread. Like pearls lying here and there on a table; The reality of it is the pearls are all strung together by a common thread ( say the wise). This thread is that underlying Reality of Being. Yet this is missed by the saMsarI and not anchored in that Being; This Being is none other then one's true , pure , stainless Self. the self that one experiences today is a fragment the Self as there cannot be two Selves. This would make the notion of wholeness quite difficult to comprehend, yet many are also confused on this matter. Again, something not to pursue.
    But yajvan, why then bring it up ? It is germane to the overall conversation we have been discussing on this string. It is the absence of this Being/Self as ones own direct experience that one looks to find happiness. This is the pickle of the saMsAri. Looking for something he/she is already, going from birth to birth to do it.

    iti sivam
    Last edited by yajvan; 30 October 2014 at 10:34 AM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  8. #28
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    Also can you offer some reference to the advaitin view that moksa is a positive state of pleasure.
    Hi,

    There is a large body of work by Christopher Framarin and Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad on this topic. Many of the links above could be behind paywalls. In any case, I provide some references and arguments of interest.

    Exegetically, Brahman is *sat-chit-ananda*. This is a definition of the essence or svarupa of Brahman itself in advaita. So, clearly, bliss/ananda define Brahman.

    For Nyaya, cognition is a quality of the self and one of the necessary conditions of cognition as per Nyaya is a body endowed with senses. In moksha, the self is disembodied and hence the Nyaya is forced into a position wherein the self in moksha is without any cognition, including feelings of pain/happiness/joy/sorrow, is absent.

    The Advaitins draw a sharp distinction here and point out that there is no seer other than the seeing. Some passages of interest are found in Shankara's commentary on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, 1.iv.10.

    Citsukha and Appaya Dikshita (13th and 16th century Advaitins) make the case for *absence of pain* being only a subsidiary to *positive experience of happiness*. From secondary sources, this argument is explained in "Siddhantalesasamgraha" by SS Suryanarayana Shastri, University of Madras Press, Madras, 1937.

    The primary force of the argument here seems to be that no one works towards a state which is just absence of pain. There are so many things that people are motivated to do that lead them to happiness.

    An obvious counter to this is, well, if that is the case, there is this person X who is happy with her current status in life. Given this, why should she seek Advaitin moksha?

    Madhusudhana Saraswathi, a 16th century Advaitin, in Siddhantabindhu (P.C. Divanji (editor and translator), Gaekwad Oriental Series LXIV, Baroda, 1933) has responded to such a challenge by reiterating the Advaitin position that in liberation, consciousness is intrinsically established without the need for any mode of expression. That is, it is *because* consciousness in liberation and in its primal state is inherently and positively blissful that we even have a limited form of this vast expanse of bliss via the mode of the body/mind/senses complex that we have a state that is denoted by the word "happiness/joy/pleasure" even in our unliberated mundane state of life. That is, the primal original consciousness is so expansive and powerful that even after being clouded by the veil of avidya/maya, it manages to penetrate this shield of ignorance and manifests as what we call by the terms "happiness/joy/pleasure". If this original consciousness were not supremely and positively blissful, there would be no way we could even have happiness (limited though it may be) as an experience in our unliberated life.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Re: Define Happiness Philosophically?

    Hello.

    Happiness is there only when one does know what he has and doesn't know what others have ..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Learn to read and recite a stotram
    By saidevo in forum Bhakti & Karma
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 19 January 2012, 03:13 AM
  2. sukha or happiness
    By yajvan in forum Canteen
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 27 March 2010, 12:44 PM
  3. Life is the expansion of happiness
    By yajvan in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 December 2008, 06:23 PM
  4. Sukham or happiness
    By yajvan in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23 February 2007, 11:31 AM
  5. Finite things do not contain happiness
    By yajvan in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22 January 2007, 05:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •