independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 20th Jun 2018 2:11am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Master Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh reveals the brutal truth about happiness in less than 2 lines
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 12/27/17 10:58am

morningsong

Master Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh reveals the brutal truth about happiness in less than 2 lines

We need to change up things around here instead of going over the same old over again.


Personally, I wouldn't say it's brutal that's a bit over the top, but you need attention grabbing headlines.



We’ve all asked the question, “what is happiness?”

Is it a feeling? Having stable circumstances in life? Or is it something that’s deeply personal and can’t be defined?

Well, according to Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh, it’s simply a way of being.

In fact, in a simple, but profound quote below, Thich Nhat Hanh says that true happiness is based on inner peace:

“Many people think excitement is happiness…. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.”

Thich Nhat Hanh says that acceptance is an important part of being peaceful. Yet, in western society, too many people try to change themselves for other people.

However, this is futile to our own inner peace and happiness:


“To be beautiful means to be yourself.You don’t need to be accepted by others. You need to accept yourself. When you are born a lotus flower, be a beautiful lotus flower, don’t try to be a magnolia flower. If you crave acceptance and recognition and try to change yourself to fit what other people want you to be, you will suffer all your life. True happiness and true power lie in understanding yourself, accepting yourself, having confidence in yourself.”

Thich Nhat Hanh says that to achieve acceptance, we need to start embracing the present moment and the beautiful miracles that exist around us:

“When we are mindful, deeply in touch with the present moment, our understanding of what is going on deepens, and we begin to be filled with acceptance, joy, peace and love…Around us, life bursts with miracles–a glass of water, a ray of sunshine, a leaf, a caterpillar, a flower, laughter, raindrops. If you live in awareness, it is easy to see miracles everywhere. Each human being is a multiplicity of miracles. Eyes that see thousands of colors, shapes, and forms; ears that hear a bee flying or a thunderclap; a brain that ponders a speck of dust as easily as the entire cosmos; a heart that beats in rhythm with the heartbeat of all beings. When we are tired and feel discouraged by life’s daily struggles, we may not notice these miracles, but they are always there.”

Thich Nhat Hanh goes onto say that this doesn’t mean we never think about the past or plan for the future, but that we do so in a productive way:

“To dwell in the here and now does not mean you never think about the past or responsibly plan for the future. The idea is simply not to allow yourself to get lost in regrets about the past or worries about the future. If you are firmly grounded in the present moment, the past can be an object of inquiry, the object of your mindfulness and concentration. You can attain many insights by looking into the past. But you are still grounded in the present moment.”

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 12/27/17 11:34am

TrivialPursuit

He's succinctly boiled down what people have said for a long time: Be who you are, don't worry what others say, and live in the moment. But sometimes people seem to adapt better to the same advice when stated a different way.

There's a saying about forgiveness that I love. "Forgiveness is giving up the hope that the details of the past will ever be any different." It's a cool way of saying, "You can't change it, so just get over it". But when I heard it in the former version, it solidified for me. There was something tangible about that, and I could absorb it. It wasn't even a sugar-coating of it; it just seems to be more specific and detailed, while still brief, way of saying it. Of course, his writings go well beyond rephrasing popular idioms, cliches, or catchphrases.

Nanh has words that the world needs to read. I have some of his books on my Nook. He has a very cool one Living Buddha, Living Christ, and compares how Buddhism and Christianity have many similarities, and how they are quite harmonious, rather than opposing as many of the uneducated would claim. For those seeking some meditative literature, his writings are a good start. They have a ubiquitous appeal across the board.

He's doing something right. The guy is 91 years old, and looks maybe 60. Maybe. He's one of the great thinkers alive right now. I don't hear much from Desmond Tutu anymore, but maybe I'm missing it. Hanh is the Gandhi of this generation (Hanh was in his 20s when Gandhi died). Great thinkers come in the form of people like Elon Musk, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Hanh, meaning they are in every pocket of technology and society. I only wish their voices were louder and heard more often than those who set out to create dissension and discord. But people are often more happy with the drama and conflict than just being at peace and living well. That discord comes from fear.

This experience will cover courtship, sex, commitment, fetishes, loneliness, vindication, love, and hate.
http://bit.ly/1D3FG2U
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 12/28/17 6:53am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The same assholes who are killing Rohinga.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 12/28/17 10:17am

NorthC

2freaky4church1 said:

The same assholes who are killing Rohinga.


Oh, for fuck's sake! How many people in the world have been killed by Christians?!
I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 12/28/17 10:26am

NorthC

And now to get this thread back on topic, to be perfectly honest, as beautiful as Mr. Hanh's words are, it sounds like more "just be yourself" pep talk. It comes across as Buddhism-light.
And I'm not sure if happiness=peacefulness. That actually sounds kinda boring to me. I think humans experience only a few moments of true happiness in their lives and you need to go through unhappiness to really appreciate it. I like this idea of happiness=excitement much more. Maybe that's why I never felt drawn to Asian cultures?
I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 12/28/17 1:53pm

IanRG

NorthC said:

And now to get this thread back on topic, to be perfectly honest, as beautiful as Mr. Hanh's words are, it sounds like more "just be yourself" pep talk. It comes across as Buddhism-light. And I'm not sure if happiness=peacefulness. That actually sounds kinda boring to me. I think humans experience only a few moments of true happiness in their lives and you need to go through unhappiness to really appreciate it. I like this idea of happiness=excitement much more. Maybe that's why I never felt drawn to Asian cultures?

.

It is not just in Asian cultures. For Example the Jewish "Shalom" and the Christian "Peace be with you".

.

It is about hoping for a long-term peacefulness of the soul and spirit and this being true happiness. It does not mean you cannot also have excitement in your life.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 12/28/17 5:14pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

We need to change up things around here instead of going over the same old over again.


Personally, I wouldn't say it's brutal that's a bit over the top, but you need attention grabbing headlines.



We’ve all asked the question, “what is happiness?”

Is it a feeling? Having stable circumstances in life? Or is it something that’s deeply personal and can’t be defined?

Well, according to Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh, it’s simply a way of being.

In fact, in a simple, but profound quote below, Thich Nhat Hanh says that true happiness is based on inner peace:

“Many people think excitement is happiness…. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.”

Thich Nhat Hanh says that acceptance is an important part of being peaceful. Yet, in western society, too many people try to change themselves for other people.

However, this is futile to our own inner peace and happiness:


Thich Nhat Hanh goes onto say that this doesn’t mean we never think about the past or plan for the future, but that we do so in a productive way:

“To dwell in the here and now does not mean you never think about the past or responsibly plan for the future. The idea is simply not to allow yourself to get lost in regrets about the past or worries about the future. If you are firmly grounded in the present moment, the past can be an object of inquiry, the object of your mindfulness and concentration. You can attain many insights by looking into the past. But you are still grounded in the present moment.”


Is his definition of happiness better than any other or truer than any other?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 12/28/17 5:14pm

Dasein

NorthC said:

2freaky4church1 said:

The same assholes who are killing Rohinga.

Oh, for fuck's sake! How many people in the world have been killed by Christians?!



clapping

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 12/28/17 6:46pm

toejam

avatar

Brutal truth? or fortune-cookie platitude? Hmmm...

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 12/28/17 6:50pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

morningsong said:

We need to change up things around here instead of going over the same old over again.


Personally, I wouldn't say it's brutal that's a bit over the top, but you need attention grabbing headlines.



We’ve all asked the question, “what is happiness?”

Is it a feeling? Having stable circumstances in life? Or is it something that’s deeply personal and can’t be defined?

Well, according to Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh, it’s simply a way of being.

In fact, in a simple, but profound quote below, Thich Nhat Hanh says that true happiness is based on inner peace:


Is his definition of happiness better than any other or truer than any other?

.

Can there ever be just one simple definition of happiness?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 12/29/17 5:10am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Is his definition of happiness better than any other or truer than any other?

.

Can there ever be just one simple definition of happiness?


Can you walk me through the process that lead you to asking me this question? Here's my own,
as Morning said:

Thich Nhat Hanh says that true happiness is based on inner peace:


What makes Hanh's definition truer than all the other gazillion definitions of happiness? So, in my
question, I'm addressing what I think could be implied in Hanh's definition (that it is a better defi-
nition than others) and what is explicit (that it is "true"). The answer to your own question is obvi-
ously "no" if you look at the history of the philosophy of happiness. There's a tie in with my question
that links it back to the other thread where you've made some "interesting" comments but I don't
want to derail this thread. I'm just curious as to why you thought your own question logically followed
from my own.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 12/29/17 5:57am

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:


Can you walk me through the process that lead you to asking me this question? Here's my own,
as Morning said:

Thich Nhat Hanh says that true happiness is based on inner peace:


What makes Hanh's definition truer than all the other gazillion definitions of happiness? So, in my
question, I'm addressing what I think could be implied in Hanh's definition (that it is a better defi-
nition than others) and what is explicit (that it is "true"). The answer to your own question is obvi-
ously "no" if you look at the history of the philosophy of happiness. There's a tie in with my question
that links it back to the other thread where you've made some "interesting" comments but I don't
want to derail this thread. I'm just curious as to why you thought your own question logically followed
from my own.

.

The full quote was:

.

"Many people think excitement is happiness…. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.”

.

You have focused on one word, true, to make it a definition of the one true happiness above all others. The way I read it is true happiness is based on inner peace, not on transitory happiness during brief and unsustainable periods of excitement. This is not a definition of just one type of happiness, it is a state within which there can be all the gazillion different types and sources of happiness can be sustained without being reliant on excitement. If you can be happy at rest, you can always be happy. You don't need to rely on just external stimuli to be happy, be that drugs, drink, thrillseeking, etc. This does not mean you cannot also pursue happiness in excitement, just that you don't need excitement just to be happy.

[Edited 12/29/17 5:58am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 12/29/17 9:03am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:

.

The full quote was:

.

"Many people think excitement is happiness…. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.”

.

You have focused on one word, true, to make it a definition of the one true happiness above all others.


Of course I focused on one word; I'm philosphically trained so I like to argue nuance. If Hanh saw
a definition of happiness that didn't include some basis of inner peace, given by what is provided
here by his use of the word "true", he wouldn't consider it as such. If Hanh had said "the kind of
happiness I favor or prefer is one that is based on inner peace," then I would not ask Morning what
I asked her.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 12/29/17 9:31am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Daesin, get an avatar.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 12/29/17 10:02am

TrivialPursuit

This experience will cover courtship, sex, commitment, fetishes, loneliness, vindication, love, and hate.
http://bit.ly/1D3FG2U
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 12/29/17 12:57pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

The full quote was:

.

"Many people think excitement is happiness…. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.”

.

You have focused on one word, true, to make it a definition of the one true happiness above all others. The way I read it is true happiness is based on inner peace, not on transitory happiness during brief and unsustainable periods of excitement. This is not a definition of just one type of happiness, it is a state within which there can be all the gazillion different types and sources of happiness can be sustained without being reliant on excitement. If you can be happy at rest, you can always be happy. You don't need to rely on just external stimuli to be happy, be that drugs, drink, thrillseeking, etc. This does not mean you cannot also pursue happiness in excitement, just that you don't need excitement just to be happy.


Of course I focused on one word; I'm philosphically trained so I like to argue nuance. If Hanh saw
a definition of happiness that didn't include some basis of inner peace, given by what is provided
here by his use of the word "true", he wouldn't consider it as such. If Hanh had said "the kind of
happiness I favor or prefer is one that is based on inner peace," then I would not ask Morning what
I asked her.


.

I expect this from toejam and will always stop replying to him whenever he does this.

.

By editing out what I said as to why focusing on just one word means you "nuanced" out entirely what I understand that Thich Nhat Hanh was saying. Nuance must be understood in context, not become the context. In any philosophical analysis you need to consider the context, including all of what is said, why it was said, the author and the audience. As a religious philosopher, Thich Nhat Hanh would never offer sagely advice by saying "I favour or prefer a happiness that is based on peace" even if that is what he meant. He would (and did) say "true happiness is based on peace" not on excitement. "True" here can be read as just the indicator of the favoured, preferred, sustainable, lasting option. You should have concentrated on differences between the two sets of options being happiness where it based on an excited, unpeaceful state or where it based on a peaceful state.

.

Anyway, the reason I asked you the question I did is has been answered by the highlight. He was not giving a definition, he was identifying a core basis or key component for him to consider different types of happiness to be "true" and not to be transitorily based on brief periods of excitement. There are a gazillion definitions of happiness that can include either basis or even both bases.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 12/29/17 12:57pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Daesin, get an avatar.

.

Why?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 12/30/17 5:58pm

morningsong

Dasein said:



morningsong said:


We need to change up things around here instead of going over the same old over again.


Personally, I wouldn't say it's brutal that's a bit over the top, but you need attention grabbing headlines.




We’ve all asked the question, “what is happiness?”


Is it a feeling? Having stable circumstances in life? Or is it something that’s deeply personal and can’t be defined?


Well, according to Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh, it’s simply a way of being.


In fact, in a simple, but profound quote below, Thich Nhat Hanh says that true happiness is based on inner peace:



“Many people think excitement is happiness…. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.”



Thich Nhat Hanh says that acceptance is an important part of being peaceful. Yet, in western society, too many people try to change themselves for other people.


However, this is futile to our own inner peace and happiness:



Thich Nhat Hanh goes onto say that this doesn’t mean we never think about the past or plan for the future, but that we do so in a productive way:



“To dwell in the here and now does not mean you never think about the past or responsibly plan for the future. The idea is simply not to allow yourself to get lost in regrets about the past or worries about the future. If you are firmly grounded in the present moment, the past can be an object of inquiry, the object of your mindfulness and concentration. You can attain many insights by looking into the past. But you are still grounded in the present moment.”






Is his definition of happiness better than any other or truer than any other?




no. nor have i said that.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 12/31/17 12:24am

midnightmover

TrivialPursuit said:

He's right about that. The current Russian hysteria is a very clear example. People are being manipulated for political reasons. But they don't know it.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 12/31/17 5:54am

Dasein

morningsong said:

Dasein said:


Is his definition of happiness better than any other or truer than any other?

no. nor have i said that.


Okay!

And, I know you didn't personally say that, Morning - I do know how to read and there's nothing
in your post which could lead the reader to think that. However, because he used the word "true"
to describe his definition of happiness, Hanh kinda implies that his own definition of happiness is
preferential to any other if it isn't based on "inner peace."

My beef here is that I get annoyed when spiritual/religious people start qualifying their definitions
and ways of life as being "true" because it leaves enough room for the reader to induce that any
definition or way of life that is contrary or distinguishable is not true.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 12/31/17 2:02pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

morningsong said:

Dasein said: no. nor have i said that.


Okay!

And, I know you didn't personally say that, Morning - I do know how to read and there's nothing
in your post which could lead the reader to think that. However, because he used the word "true"
to describe his definition of happiness, Hanh kinda implies that his own definition of happiness is
preferential to any other if it isn't based on "inner peace."

My beef here is that I get annoyed when spiritual/religious people start qualifying their definitions
and ways of life as being "true" because it leaves enough room for the reader to induce that any
definition or way of life that is contrary or distinguishable is not true.

.

Some see common phraseology of an understood view, where others see arrogance asserting a singular view, further others see no view but empty platitudes. Without being able to read his justification, we all just fall into line.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 12/31/17 11:30pm

TrivialPursuit

midnightmover said:

He's right about that. The current Russian hysteria is a very clear example. People are being manipulated for political reasons. But they don't know it.


It's a fine art in the United States.

This experience will cover courtship, sex, commitment, fetishes, loneliness, vindication, love, and hate.
http://bit.ly/1D3FG2U
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 01/01/18 6:00am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Okay!

And, I know you didn't personally say that, Morning - I do know how to read and there's nothing
in your post which could lead the reader to think that. However, because he used the word "true"
to describe his definition of happiness, Hanh kinda implies that his own definition of happiness is
preferential to any other if it isn't based on "inner peace."

My beef here is that I get annoyed when spiritual/religious people start qualifying their definitions
and ways of life as being "true" because it leaves enough room for the reader to induce that any
definition or way of life that is contrary or distinguishable is not true.

.

Some see common phraseology of an understood view, where others see arrogance asserting a singular view, further others see no view but empty platitudes. Without being able to read his justification, we all just fall into line.


Or, some see yet another biased common phraseology of an understood view based upon an arbi-
trary definition that can be divisive, where others see the potential for danger asserting a singular
view despite being offered in probity while others see nothing apart from empty platitudes. But,
you are right: we don't see how he "truly" feels about the subject. However, he is working within
a religious/spiritual context which is fertile grounds for establishing supremacy when it comes to
talking about what is "true":

"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have
sent."

John 17:3 (NRSV)

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 01/01/18 12:35pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

Some see common phraseology of an understood view, where others see arrogance asserting a singular view, further others see no view but empty platitudes. Without being able to read his justification, we all just fall into line.


Or, some see yet another biased common phraseology of an understood view based upon an arbi-
trary definition that can be divisive, where others see the potential for danger asserting a singular
view despite being offered in probity while others see nothing apart from empty platitudes. But,
you are right: we don't see how he "truly" feels about the subject. However, he is working within
a religious/spiritual context which is fertile grounds for establishing supremacy when it comes to
talking about what is "true":

"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have
sent."

John 17:3 (NRSV)

.

Whilst others seek to read far too much into things to try to make everything an opportunity to argue.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 01/01/18 1:15pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Or, some see yet another biased common phraseology of an understood view based upon an arbi-
trary definition that can be divisive, where others see the potential for danger asserting a singular
view despite being offered in probity while others see nothing apart from empty platitudes. But,
you are right: we don't see how he "truly" feels about the subject. However, he is working within
a religious/spiritual context which is fertile grounds for establishing supremacy when it comes to
talking about what is "true":

"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have
sent."

John 17:3 (NRSV)

.

Whilst others seek to read far too much into things to try to make everything an opportunity to argue.


I gave two reasons for my involvement in this thread: I am philosophically trained and therefore
argue on merits related to nuance and context so that when I see religious/spiritual people using
words like "true," I like to and will argue. What's your excuse for continuing to reply to me (to
only, ironically, further an argument) other than you simply like to follow me around the Org and
comment on my posts even when your contribution adds nothing of any import to the conversation?



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 01/01/18 2:26pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

Whilst others seek to read far too much into things to try to make everything an opportunity to argue.


I gave two reasons for my involvement in this thread: I am philosophically trained and therefore
argue on merits related to nuance and context so that when I see religious/spiritual people using
words like "true," I like to and will argue. What's your excuse for continuing to reply to me (to
only, ironically, further an argument) other than you simply like to follow me around the Org and
comment on my posts even when your contribution adds nothing of any import to the conversation?

.

You do realise that you are replying to my summation of the pointlessness of you continuing to jump up and down over nothing more than your dislike of a very common sage-like phraseology?

.

As to your "training": Unfortunately it clearly did not take: See my comments above on how you "nuanced" out the entire context.

.

I am so good at following you around, I posted here before you. Don't worry, you can always believe my obsession with you means I knew you would post here, so I jumped in the hope that you bless me with your presence.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 01/01/18 6:34pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


I gave two reasons for my involvement in this thread: I am philosophically trained and therefore
argue on merits related to nuance and context so that when I see religious/spiritual people using
words like "true," I like to and will argue. What's your excuse for continuing to reply to me (to
only, ironically, further an argument) other than you simply like to follow me around the Org and
comment on my posts even when your contribution adds nothing of any import to the conversation?

.

You do realise that you are replying to my summation of the pointlessness of you continuing to jump up and down over nothing more than your dislike of a very common sage-like phraseology?

.

As to your "training": Unfortunately it clearly did not take: See my comments above on how you "nuanced" out the entire context.

.

I am so good at following you around, I posted here before you. Don't worry, you can always believe my obsession with you means I knew you would post here, so I jumped in the hope that you bless me with your presence.


You do realize that I provided the context in my criticism of Hanh's "common phraseology" and be-
cause you don't read too gud, you didn't understand that context? Do you want proof of your horrible
reading skills and poor reading comprehension? The fact that you posted here before me does not
speak to what I said about you following me around at all for my very first reply in this thread is not
addressed to you directly but to Morning! LOL!

And nobody is jumping up and down; I've been quite measured in my responses.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 01/01/18 11:58pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

You do realise that you are replying to my summation of the pointlessness of you continuing to jump up and down over nothing more than your dislike of a very common sage-like phraseology?

.

As to your "training": Unfortunately it clearly did not take: See my comments above on how you "nuanced" out the entire context.

.

I am so good at following you around, I posted here before you. Don't worry, you can always believe my obsession with you means I knew you would post here, so I jumped in the hope that you bless me with your presence.


You do realize that I provided the context in my criticism of Hanh's "common phraseology" and be-
cause you don't read too gud, you didn't understand that context? Do you want proof of your horrible
reading skills and poor reading comprehension? The fact that you posted here before me does not
speak to what I said about you following me around at all for my very first reply in this thread is not
addressed to you directly but to Morning! LOL!

And nobody is jumping up and down; I've been quite measured in my responses.

.

And we are back to everyone else is stupid and no one understands you.

.

The important context when reviewing what another person said is not your context but the context within which that other person made their statement. You nuanced out all of Thich Nhat Hanh's context. As I said before: Nuance must be understood in context, not become the context. In any philosophical analysis you need to consider the context, including all of what is said by the other person, why the other person said, who the other person was and who their audience is. As a religious philosopher, Thich Nhat Hanh would never offer sagely advice by saying "I favour or prefer a happiness that is based on peace" even if that is what he meant. He would (and did) say "true happiness is based on peace" not on excitement. "True" here can be read as just the indicator of the favoured, preferred, sustainable, lasting option. You should have concentrated on differences between the two sets of options being happiness where it based on an excited, unpeaceful state or where it based on a peaceful and sustainable state.

.

Please, please, please reply, you have found me out: My life is incomplete without you - NOT. Good golly, you really need to get over yourself.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 01/02/18 7:19am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


You do realize that I provided the context in my criticism of Hanh's "common phraseology" and be-
cause you don't read too gud, you didn't understand that context? Do you want proof of your horrible
reading skills and poor reading comprehension? The fact that you posted here before me does not
speak to what I said about you following me around at all for my very first reply in this thread is not
addressed to you directly but to Morning! LOL!

And nobody is jumping up and down; I've been quite measured in my responses.

.

And we are back to everyone else is stupid and no one understands you.

.

The important context when reviewing what another person said is not your context but the context within which that other person made their statement. You nuanced out all of Thich Nhat Hanh's context. As I said before: Nuance must be understood in context, not become the context. In any philosophical analysis you need to consider the context, including all of what is said by the other person, why the other person said, who the other person was and who their audience is. As a religious philosopher, Thich Nhat Hanh would never offer sagely advice by saying "I favour or prefer a happiness that is based on peace" even if that is what he meant. He would (and did) say "true happiness is based on peace" not on excitement. "True" here can be read as just the indicator of the favoured, preferred, sustainable, lasting option. You should have concentrated on differences between the two sets of options being happiness where it based on an excited, unpeaceful state or where it based on a peaceful and sustainable state.

.

Please, please, please reply, you have found me out: My life is incomplete without you - NOT. Good golly, you really need to get over yourself.


Hanh said what he thought was "true" about happiness - it's one that's based on inner peace. I
asked Morning if she thought Hanh's definition was one that was better than or truer than any
other based upon his use of the word "true." She ultimately said "no." I told her why I asked her
that question which was because I get irritated when religious/spiritual people speak authoritatively
or definitively about things as being "true" for reasons already mentioned. There's no reason why
Hanh's definition of happiness couldn't be true if it wasn't based upon inner peace, in other words.

If you noticed, I didn't reply to your post because most of the times, nothing you say is ever really
interesting and that's not only including this thread but others. So, I think you just like to argue with
me and if you decided to place yourself on another self-imposed ban from speaking to me, I wouldn't
mind! Heheheheheheh! I comment on the poor reading comprehension skills and inability to think
clearly here at the Org because I often encounter the same with some of my students; I'm simply
astonished as to how people simply do not think before they speak sometimes!

Oh, I just remembered: you need the last word. Please do, Saint Ian!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 01/02/18 8:54am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Odd to see Sam Harris defend Buddah.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Master Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh reveals the brutal truth about happiness in less than 2 lines