3 ms·

Personally I think that aspect is more locked in to the aging of the post-World power great expectations of “up and to the right.” If people have never had dec

by svnt 3y ago

Personally I think that aspect is more locked in to the aging of the post-World power great expectations of “up and to the right.” If people have never had decent health care, and their classmates from school haven’t either, then how are they meant to move into something as rarefied as self-assessed mental health? That is something that people with too much time and not enough existential threat get up to.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Except Buddhism and similar “self help” movements evolved over thousands of years in South Asia in an environment of of extreme poverty with literally no health care, and purposefully work in a life of poverty. The idea that only wealth and leisure provides mental health or self awareness is at complete odds with how most of the knowledge around self awareness came about, as most of our modern conception around such concepts derive from Buddhist and related thought. I’d note that Buddhist countries like Burma and Cambodia are in no way bastions if wealthy leisure life, yet are somehow bastions of Buddhist meditation and pursuit of a mindful life free of suffering.
- throwaway70134 3y ago
  Nah, they are a bastion of suffering, you just don't hear about it because the people don't speak English and don't get visibility in your media; and because your media prefers to write about idealized views of Buddhist life rather than actual problems.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    You assume an awful lot about me. I visit the region quite often and have studied Buddhist for the past 30 years. You assume an awful lot more about the people and Buddhism. With first hand knowledge of what you speak of, I feel it’s hard to believe you’ve got a lot of exposure to either these parts of the world or Buddhism. Buddhism teaches you that while we can be comfortable or uncomfortable, true suffering comes from gripping tightly onto what happened or might happen, and a lack of acceptance for both what’s happening now and it’s temporary nature. You can endure the pains of cancer and imprisonment, the crush of poverty, or the pleasure of lavishness of opulent wealth, but whether you are suffering or not is entirely based on your view of things and how you frame life. The wealthy suffer unbearably just as the most deprived prisoners in the worst jails, and people in abject desolation can be content just as much as a middle class person. Note, a lot of folks confuse this with “giving up,” or being stoic, or any number of confusions as to how a person that should be miserable by your measure could not be. I know - I’ve suffered more than most, and have a lot more than most, but I’ve not always had what I have and have been deep in some dark dark places without hope. Buddhism taught me to be non attached and content in all those places, and I don’t suffer any more. I used to be anxious, depressed, all sorts of other forms of misery. But once I realized what Buddhism taught and internalized it, even as I draw my last breath whether it’s in my bed peacefully or wracked with cancer, I know I won’t be suffering. I’m not saying everyone in Myanmar is blissed out and enlightened. Many do suffer, and it’s not a pleasant place for most people, and being a Buddhist doesn’t mean practicing Buddhism. But many people do practice, and they live full and content lives despite the unpleasantness of their situation. This is at odds with what we expect in the west, because our underlying belief system teaches us poverty is misery, wealth is happiness. Truth is, we choose whether we suffer or not, and the temporary reality of poverty or wealth only offers pleasure or unpleasantness. Suffering is certainly correlated, but Buddhist teaches that it is actually independent and the correlation comes from how you frame your experiences and an over reliance on the “self.”
    - throwaway70134 3y ago
      You assume a lot about me, too. What I saw there was a lot of broken people who have learned to cope by not caring; I call that resignation. Talk to them a little and you'll see they don't appreciate their situation.
- svnt 3y ago
  You chose quite the counterexample. Siddhartha Gautama was royalty before he became the Buddha. He pursued yoga for six years after having been married and had a child before he sat down to do nothing. He was an introspective rich kid. He was not a laborer at any point. Further, Buddhism originated in temperate zones where asceticism works and originated separately because you can easily survive outdoors year round and eat very little (that is not naturally provided) because of low thermal demands on your body. You don’t see very many ascetics very far from the equator. You mistakenly equate lack with poverty, which is the point I was trying to make more subtly in my earlier comment.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    He did however renounced his wealth and lived a life of poverty. And Buddhism isn’t the story of siddhartha alone. He had many followers that figure in the pali canon quite extensively, and they were poor, rich, some even developmentally disabled. Concurrently, there were a lot of ascetics that siddhartha studied with - Buddhism didn’t spring out of his mind wholly formed, it was a distillation of thousands of years of Indian philosophy into a structured process with a structured monk hood and method of “evangelizing” and maintaining coherency of his teachings. However, I’m not specifically picking on siddhartha, but on Buddhism. Buddhism has seen many people through immensely difficult situations in life, which would cause suffering if you didn’t have a way of framing the conscious experience and it’s impact on emotional and physical well being. I used the example of Myanmar and Cambodia on purpose - they are Buddhist countries, and while not everyone who is Buddhist practices Buddhist teachings, many do. And it’s impossible to say the Burmese and Cambodians aren’t impoverished and oppressed. Yet many find through Buddhism an ability to not suffer, and lead content and full lives despite. They labor under extreme difficulty, and if you think laboring in the tropics is easy … it’s not. Yet - still, I don’t see the SLS I see in American cities and rural settings, or in UK coastal towns, etc. They’re not magical and mystical beings in burma or Cambodia, they just have access to a way of thinking that enables them to not suffer emotionally from an unpleasant life. They would escape if they could, because Buddhism doesn’t teach acceptance of unpleasantness, but it does teach how to not suffer when things are unpleasant.
    - 3y ago
- rg111 3y ago
  When Buddhism arose and developed, India was a rich country. Much of the area was under King Bimbisara who was a powerful and just ruler. Crime was rare. Rule of law prevailed. Economic activities such as trade were booming. It was one of the best places to be in human history. And not only Buddhism, other rich philosophical schools rose and thrived at that place. Healthcare wasn’t non-existent, as there is recorded history of doctors and hospitals existing. Buddhism, and many other rich philosophies could arise at that time in India specifically because India was rich, peaceful, and calm. Kings and rich merchants paid for huge expenses of a non-trivial number of people not working towards economic gain.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    This ignores the relative realities of then and now, and we are speaking of now. Then, medical care was not what we have now. It was true quackery. While doctors and hospitals existed, and were certainly some of the best in the world in that age, they still did very little compared to medical care now. While they were rich compared to much of the world (but not all of it, let’s not forget at this time Rome and China were ascendant as well, and likely superior in terms of health, science, and economic development - although South Asia had a focus on preventive health that is an envy today). However, none of this is even similar to the quality of economic, medical, scientific, educational, or other dimension in any society outside the most abject in todays world. They’re incomparable. Just antibiotics and pain medication existing alone and distributed globally to any nation no matter how impoverished is enough to make my point. So, despite what should be abject misery by todays standard, how did people attain a lack of suffering in the age of the buddha? By the same routes we do today. Buddha just wrote down a reproducible route. Buddhism doesn’t offer eternal happiness with magic beings absolving your wrongs and ensuring you live forever with your friends and loved ones. It only offers a way to use meditation to end your suffering, with it changing your reality or destiny. From that alone a major world religion took root. No bribery. No promises. Just a way to meditate and construe our reality. Maybe there’s something there?

by svnt 3y ago

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Except Buddhism and similar “self help” movements evolved over thousands of years in South Asia in an environment of of extreme poverty with literally no health care, and purposefully work in a life of poverty. The idea that only wealth and leisure provides mental health or self awareness is at complete odds with how most of the knowledge around self awareness came about, as most of our modern conception around such concepts derive from Buddhist and related thought. I’d note that Buddhist countries like Burma and Cambodia are in no way bastions if wealthy leisure life, yet are somehow bastions of Buddhist meditation and pursuit of a mindful life free of suffering.

throwaway70134 3y ago
Nah, they are a bastion of suffering, you just don't hear about it because the people don't speak English and don't get visibility in your media; and because your media prefers to write about idealized views of Buddhist life rather than actual problems.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  You assume an awful lot about me. I visit the region quite often and have studied Buddhist for the past 30 years. You assume an awful lot more about the people and Buddhism. With first hand knowledge of what you speak of, I feel it’s hard to believe you’ve got a lot of exposure to either these parts of the world or Buddhism. Buddhism teaches you that while we can be comfortable or uncomfortable, true suffering comes from gripping tightly onto what happened or might happen, and a lack of acceptance for both what’s happening now and it’s temporary nature. You can endure the pains of cancer and imprisonment, the crush of poverty, or the pleasure of lavishness of opulent wealth, but whether you are suffering or not is entirely based on your view of things and how you frame life. The wealthy suffer unbearably just as the most deprived prisoners in the worst jails, and people in abject desolation can be content just as much as a middle class person. Note, a lot of folks confuse this with “giving up,” or being stoic, or any number of confusions as to how a person that should be miserable by your measure could not be. I know - I’ve suffered more than most, and have a lot more than most, but I’ve not always had what I have and have been deep in some dark dark places without hope. Buddhism taught me to be non attached and content in all those places, and I don’t suffer any more. I used to be anxious, depressed, all sorts of other forms of misery. But once I realized what Buddhism taught and internalized it, even as I draw my last breath whether it’s in my bed peacefully or wracked with cancer, I know I won’t be suffering. I’m not saying everyone in Myanmar is blissed out and enlightened. Many do suffer, and it’s not a pleasant place for most people, and being a Buddhist doesn’t mean practicing Buddhism. But many people do practice, and they live full and content lives despite the unpleasantness of their situation. This is at odds with what we expect in the west, because our underlying belief system teaches us poverty is misery, wealth is happiness. Truth is, we choose whether we suffer or not, and the temporary reality of poverty or wealth only offers pleasure or unpleasantness. Suffering is certainly correlated, but Buddhist teaches that it is actually independent and the correlation comes from how you frame your experiences and an over reliance on the “self.”
  - throwaway70134 3y ago
    You assume a lot about me, too. What I saw there was a lot of broken people who have learned to cope by not caring; I call that resignation. Talk to them a little and you'll see they don't appreciate their situation.
svnt 3y ago
You chose quite the counterexample. Siddhartha Gautama was royalty before he became the Buddha. He pursued yoga for six years after having been married and had a child before he sat down to do nothing. He was an introspective rich kid. He was not a laborer at any point. Further, Buddhism originated in temperate zones where asceticism works and originated separately because you can easily survive outdoors year round and eat very little (that is not naturally provided) because of low thermal demands on your body. You don’t see very many ascetics very far from the equator. You mistakenly equate lack with poverty, which is the point I was trying to make more subtly in my earlier comment.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  He did however renounced his wealth and lived a life of poverty. And Buddhism isn’t the story of siddhartha alone. He had many followers that figure in the pali canon quite extensively, and they were poor, rich, some even developmentally disabled. Concurrently, there were a lot of ascetics that siddhartha studied with - Buddhism didn’t spring out of his mind wholly formed, it was a distillation of thousands of years of Indian philosophy into a structured process with a structured monk hood and method of “evangelizing” and maintaining coherency of his teachings. However, I’m not specifically picking on siddhartha, but on Buddhism. Buddhism has seen many people through immensely difficult situations in life, which would cause suffering if you didn’t have a way of framing the conscious experience and it’s impact on emotional and physical well being. I used the example of Myanmar and Cambodia on purpose - they are Buddhist countries, and while not everyone who is Buddhist practices Buddhist teachings, many do. And it’s impossible to say the Burmese and Cambodians aren’t impoverished and oppressed. Yet many find through Buddhism an ability to not suffer, and lead content and full lives despite. They labor under extreme difficulty, and if you think laboring in the tropics is easy … it’s not. Yet - still, I don’t see the SLS I see in American cities and rural settings, or in UK coastal towns, etc. They’re not magical and mystical beings in burma or Cambodia, they just have access to a way of thinking that enables them to not suffer emotionally from an unpleasant life. They would escape if they could, because Buddhism doesn’t teach acceptance of unpleasantness, but it does teach how to not suffer when things are unpleasant.
  - 3y ago
rg111 3y ago
When Buddhism arose and developed, India was a rich country. Much of the area was under King Bimbisara who was a powerful and just ruler. Crime was rare. Rule of law prevailed. Economic activities such as trade were booming. It was one of the best places to be in human history. And not only Buddhism, other rich philosophical schools rose and thrived at that place. Healthcare wasn’t non-existent, as there is recorded history of doctors and hospitals existing. Buddhism, and many other rich philosophies could arise at that time in India specifically because India was rich, peaceful, and calm. Kings and rich merchants paid for huge expenses of a non-trivial number of people not working towards economic gain.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  This ignores the relative realities of then and now, and we are speaking of now. Then, medical care was not what we have now. It was true quackery. While doctors and hospitals existed, and were certainly some of the best in the world in that age, they still did very little compared to medical care now. While they were rich compared to much of the world (but not all of it, let’s not forget at this time Rome and China were ascendant as well, and likely superior in terms of health, science, and economic development - although South Asia had a focus on preventive health that is an envy today). However, none of this is even similar to the quality of economic, medical, scientific, educational, or other dimension in any society outside the most abject in todays world. They’re incomparable. Just antibiotics and pain medication existing alone and distributed globally to any nation no matter how impoverished is enough to make my point. So, despite what should be abject misery by todays standard, how did people attain a lack of suffering in the age of the buddha? By the same routes we do today. Buddha just wrote down a reproducible route. Buddhism doesn’t offer eternal happiness with magic beings absolving your wrongs and ensuring you live forever with your friends and loved ones. It only offers a way to use meditation to end your suffering, with it changing your reality or destiny. From that alone a major world religion took root. No bribery. No promises. Just a way to meditate and construe our reality. Maybe there’s something there?