[MD] Happiness..what do we mean?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:22 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> World is Becoming a Happier Place Says Dalai Lama:  http://www.policymic.com/articles/22651/world-is-becoming-a-happier-place-says-dalai-lama
>
> "Happiness is a very present pursuit that aligns itself with a way of living that has elements of Buddhism or Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality."

Hi David

Thank you for the link to this very interesting piece. I am unsure the
author has a firm footing here, however. Happiness isn't some 'thing'
we can obtain. He speaks in terms of 'true happiness' and 'true
purpose' as if they are out there waiting to be discovered by the
lucky few.

Note this sentence as it seems to sum up his premise:

"In other words, find something that brings quality to life, follow
it, and happiness will follow."

This seems convoluted at best. Check out this quote from Lila:

"Phaedrus had no "cause" that he could explain to anybody. His cause
was the Quality of his life, which could not be framed in the
"objective" language of the intellectuals and therefore in their eyes
was not a cause at all. He knew that intellectually contrived
technological devices had increased in number and complexity, but he
didn't think the ability to enjoy these devices had increased in
pro­portion. He didn't think you could say with certainty that people
are any happier than they were during the Victorian era. This "pursuit
of happiness" seemed to have become like the pursuit of some
scientifically created, mechanical rabbit that moves ahead at whatever
speed it is pursued. If you ever did catch it for a few moments it had
a peculiar synthetic, technological taste that made the whole pursuit
seem senseless."

See, he says 'his cause was the Quality OF his life,' not a search for
something that brings quality TO his life. The author of this article
is thinking in terms of happiness as an objective pursuit while the
MOQ sees that cause as life itself.

If the author had a solid grasp on the MOQ I think he might have seen
that happiness and meaning like every 'thing' else are a collection of
patterns of value that arise, flourish, and pass away. It is always
transitory and so, yes, it is not possible to define in any sense of
the word. There is no true happiness.

I got the feeling reading the article that someone might have told him
about Robert Pirsig's work and rather than taking the time to read his
books he merely googled it and found the wiki article.

As far as the Dalai Lama, I wonder if he would feel the same way if he
had to live in one of the inner cities of the world amid the crime and
the squalor. It seems easy to speak of compassion while being
insulated from the poverty and suffering of the world; if a person is
subjugated to such a life on a daily basis it may seem rather
difficult to believe the world is becoming a happier place.

Thanks again,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com