Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Is Nirvana person usefull to society?

122 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I like to hear what Umers think.

Are Buddhism usefull to society?

Is Nirvana person numb to contribute to society?

Thanks in advance.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those who seek enlightenment are seeking it for their own mental health, and to try to reach a more whole or complete understanding in their lives.

I also think they make a great contribution to society in that they are able to teach others from their own experience, and hopefully spread some sanity into the world. Who can say how many political, social and cultural leaders have been positively influenced by these people.

In my view, it is a great benefit to human civilization that these individuals exist. I have read many books written by and about "Nirvana persons", as many have, and their lives have inspired me in many positive moral and practical ways.

Thank you all awakened men and women through history.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to hear what Umers think.

Are Buddhism usefull to society?

Is Nirvana person numb to contribute to society?

Thanks in advance.

Buddhism is merely another religion and "Nirvana" is supposedly some enlightened state that one achieves in said religion.

Such people, in my view, are not any more or less "useful" than anyone else.

They are no different than the so-called "born again" christians except most people who claim to have reached "nirvana" don't brag or flaunt it nor do they think they are somehow superior to the rest of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe you should read up on Buddhism. Nirvana is a state of bliss, it is not being numb to the world. When you are in a peaceful and calm state you are still still useful, you are just happy for the most part, you just don't let people and things affect your inner core.

Take a little time and read up on it.

http://buddhism.abou.../nirvanadef.htm

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

Edited by Darkwind
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Dhala Lama (enlightened Buddhist) a useful and productive individual ?

Is Keanu Reeves (actor and Practising Buddhist) a useful and productive person ?

Is Rodger Waters (world famous musician and practising Buddhist) a useful and productive person ?

Frankly the question is so ridiculous as to not be worth addressing.

Br Cornelius

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I know what Buddhism is.

Secondly one's religious affiliation means nothing. Either you are "useful" (exploitable) or not.

You are right cornelius, this IS a ridiculous question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Buddhism usefull to society?

It depends.

If by useful to society, you mean liberating all of the souls of society from the physical attachment then the answer is yes.

If by useful to society, you mean advancing or increasing the physical, then no.

Is Nirvana person numb to contribute to society?

Thanks in advance.

they are numb only to physical attachments. They are not numb to the pains and needs of others - no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons given for the Communist takeover of Tibet was that it had become a society run by monks who had forgone all personal ambition and that as a result the country had no chance to advance.

Personally I know a lot of monks who are like that; they forgoe all personal ambition, become unfeeling uncaring and untouched by human desires. I also know of monks who feel so strongly as to self-immolate to make a political point.

Why do we have to decide how each person should behave?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we have to decide how each person should behave?

I think some people do that for egotistical reasons, the only way some people can feel valid is to see a mirror of them-selves in others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by useful to society, you mean advancing or increasing the physical, then no.

Anti progress?

Do you think that them as labour could contribute more to society they live in...by becoming more active...taking initiative?

Are Buddhist passive when it comes to building society they live in....Laos is now growing but it was state where Goverment wanted to rebuilt main square in main city and on that square only four workers worked...and when Jornalists ask them about it...they resond ah why to hurry? We dont have dead lines...

To me seems that Buddhists lack of organization, adventure spirit, energy if you want...Tibet, Mongolia...Like they are living on another planet or should I say realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons given for the Communist takeover of Tibet was that it had become a society run by monks who had forgone all personal ambition and that as a result the country had no chance to advance.

Personally I know a lot of monks who are like that; they forgoe all personal ambition, become unfeeling uncaring and untouched by human desires. I also know of monks who feel so strongly as to self-immolate to make a political point.

Why do we have to decide how each person should behave?

I simply don't see the point of self-immolation, although I am very sympathetic to Buddhism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons given for the Communist takeover of Tibet was that it had become a society run by monks who had forgone all personal ambition and that as a result the country had no chance to advance.

Personally I know a lot of monks who are like that; they forgoe all personal ambition, become unfeeling uncaring and untouched by human desires. I also know of monks who feel so strongly as to self-immolate to make a political point.

Why do we have to decide how each person should behave?

Because history thought us that communism wont work on long run. It ignores human desire to accumulate good. We are like ants. Squirels. We collect goods. We plan things.

What strikes me in your post is that you admit that monks have no personal ambition, do not care about human desires.

Now, why we need to ignore human desires? For example, sex is fun. It feels good. It feels good to know that you safe some dollars on account for hard times. Ignoring desires will not put food on table. Monks, maybe Im wrong, are paid by charity.(?) Many people become monks because they get houses and food.

You said that Buddhists dont have personal ambitions. Now that is wrong on many levels. Adam Smith who is one of father of economy in his Wealth of nations , beside that he spoke about specialization, spoke about Invisible hand. Its hand which help society.

By seeking for personal breaktrough and success we are led by invisible hand which upgrade our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Because history thought us that communism wont work on long run. It ignores human desire to accumulate good. We are like ants. Squirels. We collect goods. We plan things.

What strikes me in your post is that you admit that monks have no personal ambition, do not care about human desires.

Now, why we need to ignore human desires? For example, sex is fun. It feels good. It feels good to know that you safe some dollars on account for hard times. Ignoring desires will not put food on table. Monks, maybe Im wrong, are paid by charity.(?) Many people become monks because they get houses and food.

You said that Buddhists dont have personal ambitions. Now that is wrong on many levels. Adam Smith who is one of father of economy in his Wealth of nations , beside that he spoke about specialization, spoke about Invisible hand. Its hand which help society.

By seeking for personal breaktrough and success we are led by invisible hand which upgrade our society.

All of what you say us true L, but despite what they say, monks do have desires and they also sell their services. They participate just as much as anyone else. In economics choices are based upon utility. A monk living off of others provides the perceived wisdom and information of Buddhism to others in return they give him the necessities of life. Even if he is a useless monk others still receive benefit from the perceived value of supporting him. If it did not give them utility over and above the utility they got from what they have they would not give it. This is the crux of economic decision makeing. There is still a positive utility for society being generated. You must remember that what Adam smith proposed then was researched and modified to fit new discoveries is a description of Human decision makeing then prescriptions to maximize utility for everyone. The reason socialism never works because it starts from a prescription before taking into account how people actually behave. idea to application dosnt work. Knowledge of reality then using reality to maximize utility with the closest and best centralized choices through research does.

The monk participates, but corporations violating key tenants of known economic modifiers is devastating. Mostly externalities which artificially deflate their costs and impose them on others, collusion which creates artificial prices, and many other artificial supply and demand modifiers. Don't get me started. Most of our institutions violate key economic no nos. if only we would truly follow economic theory our world would change drastically.

Edited by White Crane Feather
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The monk participates, but corporations violating key tenants of known economic modifiers is devastating. Mostly externalities which artificially deflate their costs and impose them on others, collusion which creates artificial prices, and many other artificial supply and demand modifiers. Don't get me started. Most of our institutions violate key economic no nos. if only we would truly follow economic theory our world would change drastically.

I didnt talk just about monks but all Buddhists. Also we can argue a lot about today economy which is based on Adam Smith. I dare you to start. :rolleyes: Companies are violate perfect economy due ecocide.True. But perfect economy is violated also by monopoly and corruption. Difference is that Goverment have power and knowledge to fight it. Based on your post I conclude you know messures. So I will not describe them. There is no perfect economy. We live in unperfect world with unperfect economy. So invisible hand effect is weak but...unmotivaed and unambitious population in essence will not contribute to invisible hand. Others atleast trying.

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Question I want to ask you is...lets say we have perfect market without ecocide, corruption and monopoly...and that is Buddhist society...will they made progress? Will they would be able ever to reach production possibilities frontier? I think not. They will always be inside curve. Never on curve and not to mentioned moving curve right.

That said if goverment wanted to interfier with problem they would must touch religion question and that way human rights. So we have situation where we have religion vs goverment.

Meaning goverment dont have power to fight with this phenomenan. Its like boycot in a sense. You would have to change ideology. On another hand we can fight ecocide, monopoly and corruption.

Its Buddhism vs Science. Monks and Buddhists participate but in what extend? Couldnt they participate more if they were ambitious.

Being unsatisfied is good. Anxiety is good. If anxiety dont exist we will never made changes in our lives. Being abmitious is good for society. Yet we have people who are not ambitious.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question I want to ask you is...lets say we have perfect market without ecocide, corruption and monopoly...and that is Buddhist society...will they made progress? Will they would be able ever to reach production possibilities frontier? I think not. They will always be inside curve. Never on curve and not to mentioned moving curve right.

That said if goverment wanted to interfier with problem they would must touch religion question and that way human rights. So we have situation where we have religion vs goverment.

Meaning goverment dont have power to fight with this phenomenan. Its like boycot in a sense. You would have to change ideology. On another hand we can fight ecocide, monopoly and corruption.

Its Buddhism vs Science. Monks and Buddhists participate but in what extend? Couldnt they participate more if they were ambitious.

Being unsatisfied is good. Anxiety is good. If anxiety dont exist we will never made changes in our lives. Being abmitious is good for society. Yet we have people who are not ambitious.

Being to ambitions is the main reason why we have an unsustainable growth economy which is causing ecoside as you put it. It is not a universally positive quality to constantly seek novalty and "progress" (whatever that means). Most of the greatest attrocities in history have been carrie3d outr in the name of progress at the hands of sociopaths.

More pointless speculation. If I spent a little time I am certain I could find many Buddhists who have actively contributed to societal progress. One of the most dynamic societies in history (the Japanese) has a substantial Buddhist community (probably approaching half) - have they held back the technological development of Japan.

As I said it a frankly ridiculous proposition that a Buddhist is socially useless.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Question I want to ask you is...lets say we have perfect market without ecocide, corruption and monopoly...and that is Buddhist society...will they made progress? Will they would be able ever to reach production possibilities frontier? I think not. They will always be inside curve. Never on curve and not to mentioned moving curve right.

That said if goverment wanted to interfier with problem they would must touch religion question and that way human rights. So we have situation where we have religion vs goverment.

Meaning goverment dont have power to fight with this phenomenan. Its like boycot in a sense. You would have to change ideology. On another hand we can fight ecocide, monopoly and corruption.

Its Buddhism vs Science. Monks and Buddhists participate but in what extend? Couldnt they participate more if they were ambitious.

Being unsatisfied is good. Anxiety is good. If anxiety dont exist we will never made changes in our lives. Being abmitious is good for society. Yet we have people who are not ambitious.

L think you are missing the point of economics. The goal of economics is not to further your or anyone else's idea of progress. Its to describe, scientifically, how and why we make our choices then to make policy to maximize human utility. aka Happiness. Being free of dissatisfaction, anxiety, and other motivators creates positive utility for many many people. I would say just about everyone. Government sponsored stress has nothing to do with creating happy people but furthering some sort of dreamt up goal and utility for humanity and maximizing the utility for the people who value such things at the expense of those who don't. One thing that history has taught us is that imposing ideas on others does not work, creates a black market of sorts and ultimately is not maximizing human happiness.

Why do you want people to work so? Do you want better technologies? More fiscal growth? What? This is a loaded question because no matter how you answer it, you are suggesting maximizing your own happiness/utility by virtue of you own values and the expense of someone else's who does not gain utility from the same things that you do.

Im not talking about pure markets. Pure markets are impossible by virtue of the very thing that makes them good. The rules against monopolies, externalities, collusions are there to move markets to more purity by keeping out the potential negative influences of self interests. These things are determined mathematically, experimentally, and confirmed in practice.

You are proposing a control on people in an attempt to motivate them to participate in more innovation. In essence you are attempting to artificially increase the supply of labor. What this mean. Well its been a while since I worked with supply and demand curves. Automatically artificially and on a very basic level this puts a market out of equilibrium. The equilibrium demand will fall short of the supply. This is unemployment and creates downward pressure on wages until enough people drop out of the market. ( the remaining true Buddhists?).

The mistake is to think that more people working for more things will create economic exchanges. While its tempting to think that more people with more money will raise demand to equal out with supply, it dosnt work because you approached it from the wrong direction creating a surplus labour without the demand to support it.

You also might be considering this as an entire supply shifter. Its been so long since I went over supply shifters, but forced centralized controls are always associated with surpluses and shortages.

The whole concept doesn't work because you are imposing what you consider good upon other people that do not consider it good. Our economies should not be growing any more than they should be growing. When you mess with markets all humans do is screw it up.....Every time....without fail.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

L think you are missing the point of economics. The goal of economics is not to further your or anyone else's idea of progress. Its to describe, scientifically, how and why we make our choices then to ma

I wouldnt agree. Why dont you rather answer my questions instead making it personal. Lets say I dont understand why dont you explain it to me? lol

Its not all about choices even it is called Science of choices. Goal of economy is study by part of economy called Nominal economy. It trys to answer goals of economy. Using ethic views. Moral stance. I understand it very well. :w00t:

Nevertheless you missed terms. Goals of economy isnt same as economic progress.

Goal of economy by defenition (if we ignore nominal one) is to reach point where we cant made better economic situation without that we reduce others people economic situation.

Goal of economy is to find easiest way to use resources and divide it among population. Because resources are not unlimited.

If resourcers were unlimited then Economy wouldnt exist at all. :tu:

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt agree. Why dont you rather answer my questions instead making it personal. Lets say I dont understand why dont you explain it to me? lol

Its not all about choices even it is called Science of choices. Goal of economy is study by part of economy called Nominal economy. It trys to answer goals of economy. Using ethic views. Moral stance. I understand it very well. :w00t:

Nevertheless you missed terms. Goals of economy isnt same as economic progress.

Goal of economy by defenition (if we ignore nominal one) is to reach point where we cant made better economic situation without that we reduce others people economic situation.

Goal of economy is to find easiest way to use resources and divide it among population. Because resources are not unlimited.

If resourcers were limited then Economy wouldnt exist at all. :tu:

Bizarre.

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bizarre.

Br Cornelius

May I ask why?

L

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If resourcers were limited then Economy wouldnt exist at all. :tu:

This is just drival, resources are finite and the action of society is generally about resolving conflicts regarding resource access and utilization. It is a fiction of capitalism that resources are infinite and why capitalist theory frequently fails to describe reality.

The rest is largely unintelligible.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is just drival, resources are finite and the action of society is generally about resolving conflicts regarding resource access and utilization. It is a fiction of capitalism that resources are infinite and why capitalist theory frequently fails to describe reality.

The rest is largely unintelligible.

Br Cornelius

I edited my post in same minute you wrote this. It was lapsus linguae. You can see what I meant by sentence before that.

Just add : "un"

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelius what do you mean by this: The rest is largely unintelligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Being free of dissatisfaction, anxiety, and other motivators creates positive utility for many many people. I would say just about everyone. Government sponsored stress has nothing to do with creating happy people but furthering some sort of dreamt up goal and utility for humanity and maximizing the utility for the people who value such things at the expense of those who don't. One thing that history has taught us is that imposing ideas on others does not work, creates a black market of sorts and ultimately is not maximizing human happiness.

Why do you want people to work so? Do you want better technologies? More fiscal growth? What? This is a loaded question because no matter how you answer it, you are suggesting maximizing your own happiness/utility by virtue of you own values and the expense of someone else's who does not gain utility from the same things that you do.

Im not talking about pure markets. Pure markets are impossible by virtue of the very thing that makes them good. The rules against monopolies, externalities, collusions are there to move markets to more purity by keeping out the potential negative influences of self interests. These things are determined mathematically, experimentally, and confirmed in practice.

You are proposing a control on people in an attempt to motivate them to participate in more innovation. In essence you are attempting to artificially increase the supply of labor. What this mean. Well its been a while since I worked with supply and demand curves. Automatically artificially and on a very basic level this puts a market out of equilibrium. The equilibrium demand will fall short of the supply. This is unemployment and creates downward pressure on wages until enough people drop out of the market. ( the remaining true Buddhists?).

The mistake is to think that more people working for more things will create economic exchanges. While its tempting to think that more people with more money will raise demand to equal out with supply, it dosnt work because you approached it from the wrong direction creating a surplus labour without the demand to support it.

You also might be considering this as an entire supply shifter. Its been so long since I went over supply shifters, but forced centralized controls are always associated with surpluses and shortages.

The whole concept doesn't work because you are imposing what you consider good upon other people that do not consider it good. Our economies should not be growing any more than they should be growing. When you mess with markets all humans do is screw it up.....Every time....without fail.

I just see you edited your post.

What about Utility ? Can follow you. You mean Marginal utility?

Goverment shoudnt sponsored stress. I used analogy of stress and anxiety to describe how ambitious by all definition impact economy. My posing ideas do work. We are in global viilage. Not one country is island. Well except North Korea and similar. History doesnt show that. History is only labratory where we can test ideas. Yet this isnt idea. This is science. Please dont tell me that all Buddhists are happy? What about health care, social insurence, education, apartments…

Why do I want that? I dont. I discuss. Even if I did want it would be because of science. What will I get? Better country for those people. And now you will say they are happy. Even I dont agree that all Buddhist are happy per se. But lets say I did. Maybe they are happy because they are under dogma and doctrines?

I wont maximize my happiness by own values. Its value of knowledge. Value of science. Science isnt mine.

As I already said that perfect markets dont exists. I used hypothethical situtation which you didnt grasp or kindly avoid.

Where did you read control of people? About increase of supply of labor…How do you know how will their economy developed? Lol. You are not taking all variables into account in your prime school example. That will happened IF all other variables stayed unchanged. Which will not stay.

Ofcourse that I dont think that if more people is working that more postive things would happend. And in economy it wanst explained by supply and demand but with theory that if we increase one input into production and others inputs leave the same we would have negative results. In my country there is saying: „Puno baba-kilavo dijete“ (More nanies-more akward baby) . Because of you terminology I see you have knowledge in it (my termionlogy is bad due language barrier). So if you are educated in it you know that economy progress goes on four wheels.

Our economies should be growing if they have space to grow. Why not? You like miserable people? You like people without social and health? You like homeless? You like poverty?

And I do not agree that when we mess with market we mess everytime. Its pesimistic view. Not well informed.

On this statement I can partly agree:

The whole concept doesn't work because you are imposing what you consider good upon other people that do not consider it good.

But tell me, how will invisible hand work if we dont have ambitious people?

Cheers!

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Puno baba-kilavo dijete“ " Are you Croatian?

"Our economies should be growing if they have space to grow. Why not? You like miserable people? You like people without social and health? You like homeless? You like poverty?"

So there's lots of room for growth in Croatia? Everyone's happy, healthy, rich and well housed there? Must be because of all the Catholic monks there.

pax

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.