The Meaning of Life

His Holiness the Dalai Lama says that the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness.

I can see what he is getting at, but I can't help but think about the millions in the world who live in misery. How can I justify pursuing my own happiness when so many are suffering? How can I ever really be happy knowing that millions are suffering?

Yeah, I know the whole do what you can to make the world a better place thing, but is that enough? Even if I somehow manage to make 1000 people happy, how can I be happy knowing that millions of others aren't?

How can "the pursuit of happiness" be enough?

The answer, for you, is expressed in your question. You will not find hapiness by ignoring the struggle of others.

Additionally, the pursuit of "hapiness" need not be seen as simply your singular hapiness, as in that of the single cell apart from the whole, but can be viewed as more general and all encompassing.

The answer to the ultimate question about Life, the Universe, and everything is:

42.

I thought everyone knew that by now.

P2

I'm curious as to during what occasion did his Holiness say this?
Buddhism affirms that everything is emptiness, so there is nothing to pursue, nothing to attain. Also that suffering is caused by the ignorance of this truth.

I've actually heard this quote attributed to him several times. I have seen him say this in an interview as well. The interviewer directly asked him about it, and he responded that yes, the purpose of life was the pursuit of happiness.

However, as Gabe seemed to allude to, perhaps it's the pursuit that counts, not the happiness. In regards to your questions this might mean that maybe the meaning comes from helping others to realize that truth, thereby reducing their suffer.

I will do a little research about this and come back to you, it is intriguing me.

I <42

/Tina - and then I mean EXAKTly 42 nothing else.. (29 right now)

Here's what I found about the Dalai Lama and the pursuit of happiness:
In his Nobel prize acceptance speech:

"No matter what part of the world we come from, we are all basically the same human beings. We all seek happiness and try to avoid suffering. We have the same basic human needs and is concerns. All of us human beings want freedom and the right to determine our own destiny as individuals and as peoples. That is human nature. The great changes that are taking place everywhere in the world, from Eastern Europe to Africa are a clear indication of this."

"People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction."


This one taken from this websiteseem to be the one that you are refering to. Except this one has not been distorted by the word of mouth syndrome:

" I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness. That is clear. Whether one believes in religion or not, whether one believes in this religion or that religion, we all are seeking something better in life. So, I think, the very motion of our life is towards happiness…"

So you see, it's very easy to turn around after reading this statement and remember it as "the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness". Similar in shape but very different in meaning.

I just wanted to clarify your original statement. It seemed out of character for the Dalai lama to talk about the meaning of life in such terms. To me it looks like a distorted rewording from a reporter that does not have a clear understanding of what he heard.

It's like when the Dalai Lama came to Canada, a top CBC reporter asked his Holiness something about his lifetime work as the leader of the Tibetan people toward the liberation of Tibet. His Holiness listened as the question was being translated then started laughing, saying "I am not the leader of the tibetan people! I'm just a humble monk!

Reporters should do their homework before putting both feet in.

I am not sure I see the distinction you are trying to make. Are you saying that the purpose of life is not connected with the meaning of life?

To clarify though, His Holiness agreed with what the reporter said to him, but maybe I am just not remembering the exact question correctly. It's been a few years since I saw the interview.

I hope to reach happines by that age

I will try to explain, please bear with me.

The statement" the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness" is dogmatic to the extreme. It generalises that the sole purpose of ALL life is to pursue happiness. To use "the meaning of life is" in a statement implies that it is a universal truth independent of life itself. That is contrary to all Buddhist precepts.

the statement "the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness" is different in that it says "our life", human life. Also, a purpose is different than a meaning. A meaning is symbolic, it's in the mind. A purpose designate a function, which may not be conscious or freely acted upon.

To explain further, we have to go into Buddhist concept of the nature of reality, mind and life in general. In short, our very basic self, when it is ignorant of it's true nature, sees the universe and everything in it as separate from itself. Dividing this universe into "I" and "not I", it wants to grasp everything that is "not I" because it desires them, thinking that will bring happiness. That is the meaning behind the statement "the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness".

The aim of Buddhist training is to realise that "I" and "not I" are one and the same. There is no separation. Desires, grasping, greed, all those are exposed as illusory feeling which we pursue because of our ignorance of our true nature.

This is difficult to grasp intellectually, because the intellect also is limited and illusory. Being part of the illusion, it's impossible for the intellect to realise it's true nature. If it did attain realisation, it would disappear! You have to go beyond intellect, desires, feelings, sensations, beliefs, to become awake.

namaste!

Live, Love, Hurt, Be Hurt, Pay Taxes, Grow Old, Die...in The End We All Got It Coming...it's Not What You Can Do For Yourself As Jfk Said It's What Can You Do For Others (though I Think Oneself Should Be Considered In That Remark, B/c How Can You Love Another If You Can't Yourself.)

All illusions...

From the small amount of reading I've done on Buddhism, it's my understanding that Pratyeka is correct in asserting that Buddhism espouses "everything is emptiness. there is nothing to pursue. there is nothing to attain. all suffering is caused by ignoring this truth."

Based on this, my interpretation of the words of His Holiness is such:

I believe he was merely presenting a picture of humanity's preoccupation with happiness, not agreeing with or endorsing the preoccupation.

To endorse humanity's struggle for happiness would be out of character with Buddhist teachings, as I understood them.

Buddhism would seem to suggest that we, instead, "do nothing. and the world will roll in ecstacy at your feet."

I do remember reading that Buddhism is split into differing schools of thought on some of its important questions. So, my understanding is undoubtedly incomplete and probably wrong.

But, that's what I got.

Good luck in your search, Vares.

And may I add this:

Heraclitus said, "Character is destiny." That used to bother me. It seemed so inflexible. It seemed to leave no room for free will. Then, I realized that I was missing the second part, the most important part: "character is a choice."

Abre Los Ojos and see the vanilla skies and puffy whites.

I read both quotes and didn't see much difference so it seems
it must be a matter of perspective.

Vares seems a bit 'frustrated' because by pursuiting his personal vision
(or society's vision) of happiness it seems unjust to "ignor" others who
do not have the same opportunites. This is a zoomed out viewpoint.

Pratyeka, who is more detailed and well versed in Buddhist philosophy,
was concerned more with the semantics of the quote and vented his
'frustration' at reporters who misquote or overgeneralize for their audience.
This is a more focused viewpoint.

I am no expert but it seems to me both of your suffering frustrations could
be remedied by 'accepting the things you can not change' and changing
the things you can, one being to jettison your selves (egos) and open your hearts
to the 'compassion for others' which is one giant step on the path to happiness
and other wonderfully positive possibilities.
Different perspectives, different paths, but the same direction.
Tai
("our greatest strengths become our greatest weaknesses" unknown author)

I'm sorry if my directness appears to come out as frustration, I assure you I am not the least frustrated with anyone. I was just pointing out a semantic detail, you are right about that. I saw a statement that seemed not in accord with the dharma and attempted to do what needed to be done to rectify it. Consider it as protecting the dharma from misconceptions. Then again, the dharma does not need protection. It's those who may base an opinion on distorted facts and statement who need protection, as they will produce undesired karma from them.

Evidently, written text is not the best vehicle for conveying feelings of intent, unless you are a poet or a lawyer, which I'm neither. I should just let people form their own opinion. What I find sad is that with all the info available to anyone with an internet connection, we still see people not taking the time to research what they see on TV. Reporter cater to their network ratings first, by making so called "news" into another entertainment program. There is no depth nor details beyond the most basic facts. Again I may seem to vent frustration, I'm not. Those are just facts.

Namaste!

The flesh is only temporary, in time the suffering of a life will end. How we and others react to the suffering is reflected in how we will be in the next life/lives.

The world is too large to make all others happy. What we must do is try to make those around us happy. A small act of kindness is like a ripple in a pond. Something simple like helping a little old lady put a bag of kitty litter in her shopping cart may seem trivial, but it just may make her day and give her a renewed respect that not everyone in this world is a selfish & uncaring SOB.

I always liked this line from the movie the Crow cause it shows a point that is often over looked in every day life "Little things, used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think they were kind of trivial. . . believe me, nothing is trivial."

Oh how I wished it was this easy. There's more times that I got screwed helping other people than receiving a thanks

Let me guess... you live in the USA, where no good deeds goes unpunished?

Even in Canada, the police recommends not to touch a person who is down on the ground, just call 911, because "you never know..."!

According to Buddhadharma It's impossible for a good action to not create a future good result due to karma.

If you got screwed after helping someone that is the result of negative past action. You will receive your positive result for the kind action later....there can be a large time delay between an action and it's karmic result.

Keep doing the positive actions over a period of time and see what happens

Zafu

The original post seemed to hsve two questions: One was how can we hope to help the world, when it is so big? the answer is that every little bit counts, and that it is as much about our effect on ourselves and htose around us than our effect on the great abstract wordl out there.

The second question was different: How can we selfishly work on our own awakening, ignoring the misery all around us? This is really a false dichotomy. I cannot help others unless I am awake. Only to the extent that I am awake can I help others. There is no difference between the two.