[staisacic]

Hi forum members,

The next quote has been taken from an article of Ajahn Brahmavamso discussing why Buddhism has had a successful spread in the Western World.

The issue that caught my attention is this:

Last century, Western priests and scholars dismissed Buddhism as pessimistic, saying that it only focuses on suffering. This was even repeated by Pope John Paul II in his controversial book on world religions.

To avoid this misunderstanding one may rearrange the central Dhamma Teaching of the Four Noble Truths as Happiness (Dukkhanirodho); the Cause of Happiness (the Eight-Fold Path); the Absence of Happiness (Dukkha); and the Cause for the Absence of Happiness (Craving). This shifts the focus onto happiness.

This is a simple re-packaging of the Dhamma that retains the essence while being more attractive to modern audiences.

It is justified by the Lord Buddha's statement that "Nirvana is the highest happiness" (Dhammapada 203, 204).

When I present the Four Noble Truths in such a way, I find all generations listen and come back for more.

The Success of Buddhism in the Western World
What resonated deeply when I first found Buddhism were the Four Noble Truths exposed with Dukkha as its focus, not as happiness. So I found this approach interesting.

Any thoughts about this?

[eduptultyt]

What resonated deeply when I first found Buddhism were the Four Noble Truths exposed with Dukkha as its focus, not as happiness. So I found this approach interesting.

Any thoughts about this?

I agree, if it gets people interested in looking into it further then no harm done but to me the main point of the four noble truths is that it's the facing up to Dukkha, the acceptance of Dukka, and the stop resisting of Dukka leads to happiness.

Focussing on happiness first is just going to lead you down the same road that lead to Dukkha in the first place.

[apannamma]

I agree, if it gets people interested in looking into it further then no harm done but to me the main point of the four noble truths is that it's the facing up to Dukkha, the acceptance of Dukka,

Yes. That was the way I get into the teachings.

Focussing on happiness first is just going to lead you down the same road that lead to Dukkha in the first place. Sure.

[zzquo0iR]

I think the ajhan has a point. I agree that for a person who doesn't realize he is suffering, Buddhism doesn't have much to offer.

But, the term dukkha is greatly misunderstood by most. Generally speaking, people think the Buddha taught suffering as an inherent qualiy of life and nibbana as a way to escape these cyclic rounds of life (death and rebirth).

Incidentially, it is also believed that the happiness you experience with your spouse, kids, career success or wealth is refused by the Buddha as causes of dukkha. Therefore, mundane happiness should also be avoided.

In short, general misunderstanding is that a person's very existance is dukkha. Naturally, most people are not interested in this kind of dhamma.

Therefore, it makes sense to clear some of these misconceptions and present Buddhism as a positive, lively, practical religion, applicable in this very life for mental peace and happiness, whether one wants to spend a successful lay life with spouses and kids, or whether one wants to go forth for a greater kind of happiness.

[imporrilk]

Ajahn Brahm used a similar presentation of the Four Noble Truths in Chapter 14 page 214 of his book "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond" published in 2006.

[Mehntswx]

I think the ajhan has a point. I agree that for a person who doesn't realize he is suffering, Buddhism doesn't have much to offer.

But, the term dukkha is greatly misunderstood by most. Generally speaking, people think the Buddha taught suffering as an inherent qualiy of life and nibbana as a way to escape these cyclic rounds of life (death and rebirth).

Incidentially, it is also believed that the happiness you experience with your spouse, kids, career success or wealth is refused by the Buddha as causes of dukkha. Therefore, mundane happiness should also be avoided.

In short, general misunderstanding is that a person's very existance is dukkha. Naturally, most people are not interetsd in this kind of dhamma.

Therefore, it makes sense to clear some of these misconceptions and present Buddhism as a positive, lively, practical religion, applicable in this very life for mental peace and happiness, whether one wants to spend a successful lay life with spouses and kids, or whether one wants to go forth for a greater kind of happiness.

Hi Deshy,

I agree with your idea that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about Buddhist teachings.

I think part of the misconception about causes of happiness is that many societies have traditionally promoted the idea of spouses and kids as being the ultimately way to ensure a happy life for the majority as this ensures the continuation of said society in the same structure. Buddhism explains that there is no simple happy recipe based on our following prescribed actions.

[Nikkkola]

I think part of the misconception about causes of happiness is that many societies have traditionally promoted the idea of spouses and kids as being the ultimately way to ensure a happy life for the majority as this ensures the continuation of said society in the same structure. Buddhism explains that there is no simple happy recipe based on our following prescribed actions.

Well.... I think there is no need to mix up mundane and super mundane dhamma. If a person wants to indulge in worldly pleasures, Buddhism does not necessarily discourage this. It merely instructs how to indulge in worldly pleasures skillfully, in harmony with nature and society.

[swissloveone]

Agreed.

Rather than trading in your spouse, abandoning your children and other responsibilites when having them fails to bring the happiness which societal pressure tends to suggest we are owed and will get if we find the " right " combination, Buddhist teachings offer a realistic understanding.

[downtowndude]

There is a reason Shakyamuni focused on dukha, and not sukha. That's because most people believe they are basically happy with moments of unhappiness. They believe that their sources of happiness are material things and giving in to sensory cravings, and it's only when these cravings aren't fulfilled that they become unhappy. It is very difficult to get them to see that what they are doing is actually creating their and other people's unease in life.

I see the logic in changing the focus, I still disagree with it. Buddhadharma shouldn't change to meet the approval of other religions. And the focus on happiness feels like the mutation of dharma from spiritual practice to pop self help, just more consumerism/materialism.

[StoyaFanst]

There is a reason Shakyamuni focused on dukha, and not sukha. That's because most people believe they are basically happy with moments of unhappiness. They believe that their sources of happiness are material things and giving in to sensory cravings, and it's only when these cravings aren't fulfilled that they become unhappy. It is very difficult to get them to see that what they are doing is actually creating their and other people's unease in life.

I see the logic in changing the focus, I still disagree with it. Buddhadharma shouldn't change to meet the approval of other religions. And the focus on happiness feels like the mutation of dharma from spiritual practice to pop self help, just more consumerism/materialism.

Hi,

The focus is on the nature and cessation of suffering and on the causes of happiness, as I see it - at the time of the first recording of Buddha's teaching as we know them and continues on.