There are many ancient traditions of wisdom, but Buddhism is unusually attentive to the whole suffering and joy thing. We’re not going to ask the Calvinists for lessons on enjoying life.
Er… is this true? I mean, about the “Buddhism” and “joy” thing. Suffering, sure, Buddhism makes a big deal out of that, apparently. But are Buddhists known for being unusually joyful and happy? Is Buddhism really more joyful? This seems like an at least somewhat questionable assertion.
If I wanted any one major religion’s take on joy, I think I’d pick… Judaism, actually. Jewish holidays certainly seem like some of the most joy-focused of any religion, for example (delicious food is an excellent source of happiness).
Largest world religions by followers: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Folk Religion. I know Christianity decently, and while joy is something you’re sometimes supposed to get out of a life lived in accordance with God it isn’t the point. (There are many Christian variants, I haven’t dug into every interpretation, I think I’m generally right here.) Islam, I thought I read the Quran at one point but admit I can’t remember much of anything. For Hinduism I read the Bhagavad Gita and remember the outline and some choice quotes, I assert that happiness is part of it but mostly in a “be happy filling your pre-destined role” way. Folk Religion is a grab bag of a bunch of different things and I can’t tell why that got lumped under one category.
Sanity check; “happiness” or “happy” shows up 5 times in the Buddhism wikipedia page, 0 times on the Islam wikipedia page, 0 times on the Christianity wikipedia page, 1 time on the Judaism wikipedia page, and 2 times on the Hinduism page (one of those in a footnote.)
I am not Jewish, but the joke I’ve heard from several Jews is that Jewish holidays follow the structure “first they tried to kill us, then we won, let’s eat”? I’m not saying that doesn’t have a happy ending but step one is pretty bad. C’mon, Judaism doesn’t have a monopoly on eating delicious food for holidays!
I am not Jewish, but the joke I’ve heard from several Jews is that Jewish holidays follow the structure “first they tried to kill us, then we won, let’s eat”?
I am not Jewish, but the joke I’ve heard from several Jews is that Jewish holidays follow the structure “first they tried to kill us, then we won, let’s eat”? I’m not saying that doesn’t have a happy ending but step one is pretty bad.
Of course, but step one is not exactly under one’s control, as a Jew… hardly seems fair to count that against the religion itself!
C’mon, Judaism doesn’t have a monopoly on eating delicious food for holidays!
I mean, the bit about the food was mostly intended as humor.
And I wouldn’t really try to figure out how to be happy by looking at what religions say about it. Now, if I were inclined to do so, I’d look at Judaism, like I said—but that’s at least partially a reductio ad absurdum; “which religion is the most joyful” strikes me as a somewhat silly question, and “Judaism” is a somewhat silly answer. It’s… not wrong? (IMO, of course.) But, like… this whole endeavor is just the wrong way of thinking about the matter. (Which is—I’m sorry to say it—perfectly illustrated by your whole “let’s look at the Wikipedia page for each religion and see how many times it mentions ‘happy’ or ‘happiness’” thing. Come on! Obviously that is a nonsensical thing to be doing here! It isn’t even a “quick and dirty approximation” to anything; it’s just noise.)
But the first paragraph—no, that’s a serious question/comment. I really was surprised to read the claim that Buddhism is somehow unusually joyful or unusually “attentive to” joy or can be expected to have better insights about joy, etc. On the contrary, Buddhism strikes me as a religion which is deeply anti-life and pro-death (very “life goals of dead people”). I would not even consider going to such people for insights about joy, of all things. Hence my somewhat incredulous comment.
And I wouldn’t really try to figure out how to be happy by looking at what religions say about it.
People have been thinking about the problem for thousands of years, most of the written answers we’ve got come from religion and philosophy. Maybe they’re all terrible answers but virtue of scholarship, sometimes I read a book and check.
(Which is—I’m sorry to say it—perfectly illustrated by your whole “let’s look at the Wikipedia page for each religion and see how many times it mentions ‘happy’ or ‘happiness’” thing. Come on! Obviously that is a nonsensical thing to be doing here! It isn’t even a “quick and dirty approximation” to anything; it’s just noise.)
I mean, not total nonsense but it isn’t a very detailed way to figure this out, I just couldn’t think of a better way after thinking for sixty seconds that didn’t involve doing some kind of literature review on each of them.
On the contrary, Buddhism strikes me as a religion which is deeply anti-life and pro-death (very “life goals of dead people”). I would not even consider going to such people for insights about joy, of all things. Hence my somewhat incredulous comment.
Checking: Have you ever read a book to learn about Buddhism before coming to the conclusion that you wouldn’t consider going to them about it? Talked to a Buddhist for a while? Read a dictionary entry? A book review of some other book?
I’m not particularly disagreeing with your conclusion at the moment, just- dude, I talked to a few Buddhists in passing, they told me a bit about what they believed, I read a book about it, I wrote a review of the book. If it bugs you that I asserted “Buddhism is unusually X” in the preamble to a book review would this go away if I added a citation from the Dalai Lama saying something to this effect, because I still have the book and I’m pretty sure there’s a line in there somewhere. I have watched you assert wilder things with less evidence though so I think this is an isolated demand for pedantry.
Maybe they’re all terrible answers but virtue of scholarship, sometimes I read a book and check.
Don’t get me wrong—I appreciate the book review!
Checking: Have you ever read a book to learn about Buddhism before coming to the conclusion that you wouldn’t consider going to them about it? Talked to a Buddhist for a while? Read a dictionary entry? A book review of some other book?
Yeah, of course. All of the above. (I forget if the book was about Buddhism specifically or comparative religion more generally; it was in college, which was a while ago. The rest, relatively recent. I mean, Buddhism has gotten a lot of coverage here on LW, among other things. Then there’s David Chapman’s writings on Buddhism… it’s not like there’s any shortage of sources!)
If it bugs you that I asserted “Buddhism is unusually X” in the preamble to a book review would this go away if I added a citation from the Dalai Lama saying something to this effect, because I still have the book and I’m pretty sure there’s a line in there somewhere.
I am kind of confused by this reaction. I mean, you said a thing (“Buddhism is unusually attentive to the whole suffering and joy thing”), and as far as I could tell, this was you saying it, not you reporting a claim that was made in the book. (Am I mistaken about this?)
And I am asking: do you actually for real believe this? If so, why do you believe it? I’m not asking for citations, like I’m a reviewer of an academic paper that you submitted. It’s not a criticism that you need to address in order to placate me.
Answers I would expect might include things like:
“Ah, no, this is not my belief, this is a thing the book says.”
“Yep, I think that this is actually true, because [reasons].”
“Eh, I dunno, I guess it’s more like a vague impression, but maybe it’s wrong; I haven’t thought about it too hard… you think I’m wrong about this? Say more?”
“Actually I was being sarcastic. I don’t really think that!”
“Yes I more or less believe this but I can see why many people would take the opposite view, it’s complicated, but anyhow it’s not critical to the review.”
“Of course I believe it, why wouldn’t I? Isn’t it very obviously and uncontroversially true? Why, do you claim otherwise…? On what basis?”
Any of those would make sense as an answer to my question!
I still have the book and I’m pretty sure there’s a line in there somewhere
Ok, see, this sounds like “actually I was reporting a claim made in the book”, and if that’s the full explanation then, cool, that does in fact answer my question. (Obviously it could instead be that the book claims this but your line about it was still you describing your own independent belief, in which case the question stands.)
I have watched you assert wilder things with less evidence though so I think this is an isolated demand for pedantry.
You are absolutely, 100%, welcome to question what I believe and why!
Buddhism seems more about the reduction of suffering than the cultivation of happiness and joy. I believe the result of this isn’t happiness, but rather stillness / peace of mind. This state is probably more postive than negative, but it still sounds like the inverse of manic depression, in that I expect both the highs and lows to be relatively close to zero.
I’d describe the opposite of buddhism to be the Dionysian (Nietzsche’s concept of it, at least)
Er… is this true? I mean, about the “Buddhism” and “joy” thing. Suffering, sure, Buddhism makes a big deal out of that, apparently. But are Buddhists known for being unusually joyful and happy? Is Buddhism really more joyful? This seems like an at least somewhat questionable assertion.
If I wanted any one major religion’s take on joy, I think I’d pick… Judaism, actually. Jewish holidays certainly seem like some of the most joy-focused of any religion, for example (delicious food is an excellent source of happiness).
Largest world religions by followers: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Folk Religion. I know Christianity decently, and while joy is something you’re sometimes supposed to get out of a life lived in accordance with God it isn’t the point. (There are many Christian variants, I haven’t dug into every interpretation, I think I’m generally right here.) Islam, I thought I read the Quran at one point but admit I can’t remember much of anything. For Hinduism I read the Bhagavad Gita and remember the outline and some choice quotes, I assert that happiness is part of it but mostly in a “be happy filling your pre-destined role” way. Folk Religion is a grab bag of a bunch of different things and I can’t tell why that got lumped under one category.
Sanity check; “happiness” or “happy” shows up 5 times in the Buddhism wikipedia page, 0 times on the Islam wikipedia page, 0 times on the Christianity wikipedia page, 1 time on the Judaism wikipedia page, and 2 times on the Hinduism page (one of those in a footnote.)
I am not Jewish, but the joke I’ve heard from several Jews is that Jewish holidays follow the structure “first they tried to kill us, then we won, let’s eat”? I’m not saying that doesn’t have a happy ending but step one is pretty bad. C’mon, Judaism doesn’t have a monopoly on eating delicious food for holidays!
A helpful analysis.
Of course, but step one is not exactly under one’s control, as a Jew… hardly seems fair to count that against the religion itself!
Matter of taste, I suppose…
Apparently the world’s happiest man is a Buddhist (they studied his brain). Just one data point.
Studies like this one claim that it reduces the negative and increases positive states.
. . . okay, wait, looking at your other comments below in this thread was this supposed to be a joke?
I mean, the bit about the food was mostly intended as humor.
And I wouldn’t really try to figure out how to be happy by looking at what religions say about it. Now, if I were inclined to do so, I’d look at Judaism, like I said—but that’s at least partially a reductio ad absurdum; “which religion is the most joyful” strikes me as a somewhat silly question, and “Judaism” is a somewhat silly answer. It’s… not wrong? (IMO, of course.) But, like… this whole endeavor is just the wrong way of thinking about the matter. (Which is—I’m sorry to say it—perfectly illustrated by your whole “let’s look at the Wikipedia page for each religion and see how many times it mentions ‘happy’ or ‘happiness’” thing. Come on! Obviously that is a nonsensical thing to be doing here! It isn’t even a “quick and dirty approximation” to anything; it’s just noise.)
But the first paragraph—no, that’s a serious question/comment. I really was surprised to read the claim that Buddhism is somehow unusually joyful or unusually “attentive to” joy or can be expected to have better insights about joy, etc. On the contrary, Buddhism strikes me as a religion which is deeply anti-life and pro-death (very “life goals of dead people”). I would not even consider going to such people for insights about joy, of all things. Hence my somewhat incredulous comment.
People have been thinking about the problem for thousands of years, most of the written answers we’ve got come from religion and philosophy. Maybe they’re all terrible answers but virtue of scholarship, sometimes I read a book and check.
I mean, not total nonsense but it isn’t a very detailed way to figure this out, I just couldn’t think of a better way after thinking for sixty seconds that didn’t involve doing some kind of literature review on each of them.
Checking: Have you ever read a book to learn about Buddhism before coming to the conclusion that you wouldn’t consider going to them about it? Talked to a Buddhist for a while? Read a dictionary entry? A book review of some other book?
I’m not particularly disagreeing with your conclusion at the moment, just- dude, I talked to a few Buddhists in passing, they told me a bit about what they believed, I read a book about it, I wrote a review of the book. If it bugs you that I asserted “Buddhism is unusually X” in the preamble to a book review would this go away if I added a citation from the Dalai Lama saying something to this effect, because I still have the book and I’m pretty sure there’s a line in there somewhere. I have watched you assert wilder things with less evidence though so I think this is an isolated demand for pedantry.
Don’t get me wrong—I appreciate the book review!
Yeah, of course. All of the above. (I forget if the book was about Buddhism specifically or comparative religion more generally; it was in college, which was a while ago. The rest, relatively recent. I mean, Buddhism has gotten a lot of coverage here on LW, among other things. Then there’s David Chapman’s writings on Buddhism… it’s not like there’s any shortage of sources!)
I am kind of confused by this reaction. I mean, you said a thing (“Buddhism is unusually attentive to the whole suffering and joy thing”), and as far as I could tell, this was you saying it, not you reporting a claim that was made in the book. (Am I mistaken about this?)
And I am asking: do you actually for real believe this? If so, why do you believe it? I’m not asking for citations, like I’m a reviewer of an academic paper that you submitted. It’s not a criticism that you need to address in order to placate me.
Answers I would expect might include things like:
“Ah, no, this is not my belief, this is a thing the book says.”
“Yep, I think that this is actually true, because [reasons].”
“Eh, I dunno, I guess it’s more like a vague impression, but maybe it’s wrong; I haven’t thought about it too hard… you think I’m wrong about this? Say more?”
“Actually I was being sarcastic. I don’t really think that!”
“Yes I more or less believe this but I can see why many people would take the opposite view, it’s complicated, but anyhow it’s not critical to the review.”
“Of course I believe it, why wouldn’t I? Isn’t it very obviously and uncontroversially true? Why, do you claim otherwise…? On what basis?”
Any of those would make sense as an answer to my question!
Ok, see, this sounds like “actually I was reporting a claim made in the book”, and if that’s the full explanation then, cool, that does in fact answer my question. (Obviously it could instead be that the book claims this but your line about it was still you describing your own independent belief, in which case the question stands.)
You are absolutely, 100%, welcome to question what I believe and why!
Buddhism seems more about the reduction of suffering than the cultivation of happiness and joy. I believe the result of this isn’t happiness, but rather stillness / peace of mind. This state is probably more postive than negative, but it still sounds like the inverse of manic depression, in that I expect both the highs and lows to be relatively close to zero.
I’d describe the opposite of buddhism to be the Dionysian (Nietzsche’s concept of it, at least)