The good life
Pleasure or denial?
Today’s dilemma is about Siddhartha Gautama, in Indian prince who found himself among the serfs one day and was deeply moved by their dire circumstances. He adopted an ascetic life, which merely made him sick, although, fortunately, his friends nursed him back to health. When he thought about it, asceticism was merely another form of self-indulgence.
Which way now to the good life?
I think what constitutes the good life differs from person to person according to their circumstances and that for most of us, it’s an ideal because there are always aspects of our lives which fall short of good. For example, I don’t consider teaching stupid, lazy school children in China to be part of the good life. I’m wary of anyone who might try to tell me how I should live to achieve the good life, although I might consider some ideas because they might benefit me, but dismiss others that are injurious. I don’t find a life of mindless indolence to be appealing even if I like the indolent part of it. I don’t find a life of suffering appealing either. It seems that at either end of the scale, such extreme lives are self-indulgent.
All right, so it’s obvious that I’m on my moderation hobbyhorse. As I believe I’ve said in an earlier entry, following a certain school of thought to its logical conclusion or simply applying its tenets regardless of the consequences can lead to self-indulgence which can be irreversibly detrimental to a person’s well-being.
The discussion at the back of the book looks at what Sid (D’you mind if I call you Sid?) decided the middle way would be.
Which way now to the good life?
I think what constitutes the good life differs from person to person according to their circumstances and that for most of us, it’s an ideal because there are always aspects of our lives which fall short of good. For example, I don’t consider teaching stupid, lazy school children in China to be part of the good life. I’m wary of anyone who might try to tell me how I should live to achieve the good life, although I might consider some ideas because they might benefit me, but dismiss others that are injurious. I don’t find a life of mindless indolence to be appealing even if I like the indolent part of it. I don’t find a life of suffering appealing either. It seems that at either end of the scale, such extreme lives are self-indulgent.
All right, so it’s obvious that I’m on my moderation hobbyhorse. As I believe I’ve said in an earlier entry, following a certain school of thought to its logical conclusion or simply applying its tenets regardless of the consequences can lead to self-indulgence which can be irreversibly detrimental to a person’s well-being.
The discussion at the back of the book looks at what Sid (D’you mind if I call you Sid?) decided the middle way would be.
- Life is full of suffering. (Bit pessimistic.)
- Suffering is caused by worry and craving for things. (That’s why I’d rather avoid worry. I don’t tend to crave things. Years of minimal income tends to put a stop to cravings. Of course, it’s different if you’re addicted to something.)
- When craving stops, suffering disappears. (True. You’ve bought a better DVD player and now no longer crave a new one.)
- You can defeat your cravings by following the ‘Noble Eightfold Path’. (You’ve just bought a new DVD player. Your craving’s been defeated.)
I assume that all craving is bad, even wanting a bacon sandwich. Yeah, sorry, Sid, but this is just being self-indulgent again and ignoring human nature. In other words, I don’t much approve of any system of thought which results in humans pretending they’re something they’re not. But don’t let me stop anyone. Being self-indulgent is part of human nature as well.
In our next entry, said Uncle Angel carefully avoiding words like “tomorrow”, we’re starting a new section of the book and a new dilemma: the necessity of cannibalism. Bring your knife and fork.
Comments