🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook

I think Epicurus argues that the ultimate pleasure is the absence of pain, which is arguably not so far from the Buddha’s cessation of suffering. The cosmologies of Epicurus and the Buddha are different, but perhaps the practical day-to-day counsels - to live wisely, honourably, and justly, and to control one’s desires - are pretty similar.

Thanks Doug. I'm a practising Epicurean. I personally see Ataraxia as a kind of mental contentment. I try and cultivate friendships, simple and easily obtainable pleasures and contemplated life and my place in it. Plus gratitude for what I have in life. I practice some mindfulness of breathing and Buddhist practices like Metta Bhavana.

Epicurus taught in a nutshell? That's even more impressive than Diogenes teaching from a clay jar.

Hey Doug, I’m really glad you made this video because for the longest time I’ve been very cognisant of the similarities between Epicureanism and Buddhism. Interestingly, ataraxia as a concept was first introduced by the skeptic Pyrrho of Elis who followed Alexander the Great into the Indus where they met and talked with the Gymnosophists who were most likely the Svetambara Jains, Ajivikas or the Early Buddhists. The concept was then picked up and adopted by the epicureans and stoics and it was this concept that helped the epicureans build a very formidable philosophical system that distinguished them from the cyreniac hedonists. I have a suspicion that perhaps the early Buddhism was focused on the here and now ataraxia as opposed to nibbana. The pyrrhonians strived to achieve ataraxia thru epoche (which sounds very much like upekkha imo). My suggestion is that perhaps the ultimate antidote to the human condition is a meld of Epicureanism and secular buddhism. Epicureanism interestingly does not have a meditative tradition and would benefit from incorporating samadhi and sati and uppekha from the Buddhists while the Buddhists can incorporate the cosmology of Epicureanism and fully shed their links to the brahmanical concepts of rebirth and karma. Nevertheless I am glad you have embarked on this interesting foray into this area of classical philosophy. Please continue!

You are really doing good work .Sadhuwad from India.

Thank you

I would like to recommend the book "six myths about the good life - thinking about what has value" by Joel J. Kupperman, who discusses this topic in his first chapter.

Thank you. This was intriguing and nicely put together. I'm looking forward to the next part.

Pain makes us strong, too much pain makes us miserble. Too much pleasure pulls us far from the truth, the good amount of pleasure is needed for our existence. In life we will suffer, then be happy, then suffer, then be happy again, pain and pleasures helps make are life the good life.

Thank you so much sir. Every day i wach your vedio.... plz keep it up it very useful live to day life.... i am sri lankan university student (buddhist studies)

I think that when we label and define a “good life” we create attachment and striving to these things that would bring us this “good life”

Thanks Doug. Great video 👍

Thanks for the informative video, Doug. Going to pull out some books as a result.

Great video! I love dialog between western and eastern thought

I think a good life is one where you maximize experience. You are destined to have emotions and highs and lows. I think living in those moments of life is the best thing we can control about our lives

Great video as always, Doug. You've a gift for this sort of thing! I've been slowly writing a piece on comparative views on the Holy Spirit, and some of the ideas you've mentioned here have appeared. Earlier today in church, the priest described a story about Moses mediating a war. The idea was that Israel would be victorious, as long as he held his staff up with both arms. Whilst I'm not atall sure, I think the sermon was meant to inspire endurance of suffering and valuation of effort over goals. This doesn't seem overly far from Buddhist non-attachment, even though they are clearly after a win 😅

I think the main aspect I find to be distinct in Buddhism amongst these philosophical approaches (and particularly emphasised in my preferred strain of Soto Zen), is the opposition to a purely intellectual approach towards alleviating suffering. The perspective of many Western philosophical approaches tend to emphasise the notion of rationality and logical reflection as being the tools we can use to come to terms with reducing pain while increasing appreciation of the "right" pleasures. However the key aspect I draw so much value out with Buddhism is its emphasis on quietening the mind through _practice_ and therefore letting go of the mind's need to take command of itself, which often leads to a separation of the body/mind. It is this "not one, but not two" approach to Being that seems so peculiar to the evolution of Buddhist phenomenology, and that resonates through the core of *practice* . I find it very curious that Western philosophers seem so quick to jettison the idea of physical practice, while in particular emphasising the superiority of rational thought. Alas maybe this is just an impression rather than a criticism I should level, but I can only speak to what methods have worked to improve my own life, and these have required that particular Quietist approach Buddhism offers.

Thank you!

Ataraxy is the absence of pain.. The Goal of Dhamma teaching is not absence of pain..but rather remove repulsion for pain..

Doug, this video made me think of the general use of language and its possible faults or limits. I think of Wittgenstein and his consideration of the language of a lion, then that lion's world as tied up with that very lion's language---the limits of language in this sense. The criticism of Epicurus as a proponent of hedonism, while he meant to promote what he called ataraxy. How much goes miscommunicated like this? And what of the word "pleasure"? of "happiness" and "joy"? At around 5:30, the transition from the use of "pain" to "suffering," apparently equating the two. The mix-up or maybe something else, around the words "discontent" and "dissatisfaction" in this video, and how that does and/or does not matter in the communication, or how it may even aid some communication! What to make of these differences, I'm not sure. Different sounds, different spellings, but different meanings? I don't know. "The wise know the difference," I repeat to myself now. At times, a Buddhist may speak of the latent evil in "pleasure," and at other times, it appears as if a Buddhist speaks like we ought to encourage "pleasure." To some degree, and no small degree (perhaps the "full 360," even), it seems one should listen with faith so that one might understand, not looking to judge or criticize another's view by their words, stuck on semantics. A dangerous, harmful, self-flagellating insistence seems to lie in the correct sounds, the correct spellings, the correct sights. And the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice: extinguishment, Nibbana, Nirvana, true happiness---I have heard it transcends language, as it cannot be objectified. Specificity, specificity, specificity. Subtlety, subtlety, subtlety. How specific, how subtle is experience for our brutish, violent, forceful words, jamming squares pegs into circular holes? Or jamming square pegs into square holes, but lopsided so that the peg cannot fit. Well, those are my thoughts, but I just wanted to suggest this philosophy of language as a topic, maybe how it relates to the concept of right speech. Uniting, kind, purposeful, true speech.

Thnx for binging the issue up. However, the philosophical approach to the pleasure problem could be confusing, and neural-study approach is perhaps more appropriate. For instance, pleasure seeking is a dopamine-driven action, but happiness can never be truly obtained. Instead, it only makes the seeking grow stronger and stronger. Conversely, happiness is from serotonin, and results in contentment. The Buddha emphasizes “Content with little,” which is in effect based on serotonin. Suffering, in modern terms, is Stress. Though not many scholars agree to that and they prefer to stick to Dukkha. Pleasure is for Stress Releasing, done in wrong ways though. Happiness is not for Stress Releasing, but a bi-product of that process done in a correct way, namely, mindfulness (of breathing, of course.)

🙏

Mill’s reference to a pig is perhaps a little loaded. I wonder whether you have read John Gray’s recent book “Feline Philosophy”, in which he argues (my paraphrase) that cats are very good at living in the moment, and that the human capacity for complex thought may not necessarily be an advantage.

Pleasure is a feeling.. feelings are not to be grasped

❤️

I wonder what you think about Epicurus' doctrine of "suggenikon hedone" (congenital pleasure, or innate pleasure), which he mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus, and how it relates to the Mahayana conceptions of buddha-nature and original enlightenment (hongaku, in Japan). It seems like Epicurus is giving a universal salvific doctrine that is natural, rather than super-natural, and has some of the same pragmatic repercussions as Buddha nature.

Very interesting. Would it be possible to know more about the influence of Buddhism in Greek philosophy and western culture in ancient time? Milinda Panha is an example, but the Greeks arrived in India long before that with Alexander the great. I was also wondering if Buddhism could be considered the first universal culture that transcended a specific ethnicity.

Doug real I is the absolute pleasure. When Doug is in nirvana I, nirvana I is that middle way. In nirvana I even hell is paradise, pain is no pain, suffering is no suffering, death is no death. Therefore in Dharmachakkappavattana sutta, this one sugest, Doug can find nirvana I. Because Shakya Buddha guide people to the absolute pleasure Dhamma lamp lightened world, which is nirvana I of Doug. Prove nice eternal life by Doug nirvana I self.⭕

Is Nirvana actually achievable as a permanent state if you take it to literally mean the cessation of all mental suffering within yourself? It seems more to me like a scale where you can move towards less suffering but never actually achieve it. It doesn't seem to be a switch like it is often laid out. (Very good video by the way)

😊🙏

Hi Doug, I am able to attain deep concentration by suppressing thoughts but not by letting go of thoughts. Did Buddha say which is better way?

Stoicism offers some of the most effective cognitive tools, IMO, towards a well balanced life. It's not that you desire (fill in the blank) that is potentially problematic; it's your attachment (underscored) to the desired outcome. Equinimity, or the state of passionate passionlessness, is the rudder that weathers many storms. Siddhartha Gautama's observation that desire is the root of suffering could've benefited from a dash of stoicism. :)

Could you please answer what is that which gets reborn in Buddhism?

Doug do you think that logic is an attachment?

Pleasure is not always the way to a good life . It may even give rise to pain and suffering if not wisely enjoyed .

Cold is the absence of heat. Pleasure is the relief from pain. Both cold and pleasure are wrong conceptions, in reality there is no such thing.