Humour

[PeterUK]

A forum member observed recently that humour does not consist in an ability to tell jokes and that's a statement I'm sure most of us can agree with. We've all met the habitual joke-teller who strikes us as anything but humorous. I once had a temporary job working in a warehouse at Heathrow Airport. One of the other storemen would pad up to me ten times a day and ask in a conspiratorial tone of voice if I'd heard the one about blah, blah, blah. I'd listen with mounting tedium (his jokes weren't usually funny at any level) and then reward with a little smile his silly, grinning, expectant face when he'd finished. It was quite obvious to me that he had a mental problem and craved attention and approval. Jokes can be amusing, but there's much more to humour than the ability to tell and appreciate jokes.

So what, then, is humour? I've long been fascinated by the question. It's something we generally take for granted, but it's highly improbable that it should exist at all. Think about it. We are born, we suffer all manner of limitation, then we die. What's funny about that? We live like little islands of consciousness, each separate from the other. Nothing lasts, everything is subject to change. Everything that we have striven for - our achievements, our possessions, our loved ones - will be stripped from us. We seek fulfilment, but unravelment awaits us. Death is the ultimate insult to the ego. Should we not, therefore, all be spending our time huddled up in corners, with expressions on our faces like that character in Munch's 'The Scream'? It would seem to be the most logical reaction to our predicament, would it not?

But no, most of us find plenty of things to amuse us on life's journey. We smile a lot, we laugh with friends, and on festive occasions we raise a merry cup. We warm to the smiling faces of others and immediately suspect people who take themselves too seriously. We understand intuitively that they have lost a sense of proportion. In my own case, I know that when I am feeling particularly burdened by some problem it is my sense of humour that is among the first things to desert me. Then I feel heavy, crazy, dark, and yearn to recover at least a measure of lightness of being, enough to make life endurable. I don't think that any of us are truly humorous, in the sense that is potential to us, but, boy, if you want to annoy us just say that we have no sense of humour at all!

My view is that humour stems from our innate recognition that the conditions of existence are not as binding and threatening as they appear to be. Whether we call ourselves believers, agnostics, atheists or whatever, we all have the intuition, to varying degrees, that we are in some kind of dream state here and are much greater than our small egoic selves. All this arising is just a play on consciousness, a divine joke in fact. No one is truly separate, no one is lost, no one is doomed. Eternal happiness is the ultimate destiny of all. Sensing this, we are capable of humour, which might be described as a playful disposition in all circumstances (and which doesn't mean that there aren't times to behave with proper seriousness). The desire to be hurtful to others is no part of this playfulness. If we live our lives selfishly, we gradually lose the intuition of our real state; in extreme cases, people go mad and then they have become little universes unto themselves, talking gibberish and oblivious to others. There is no humour in them at all. But even they will be reunited in God ultimately, because there is only God. This is my profound belief, based on what I have read and what I have experienced in life.

Whether we call ourselves believers, agnostics, atheists or whatever, we all have the intuition, to varying degrees, that we are in some kind of dream state here and are much greater than our small egoic selves.What a rich fantasy life you must enjoy. I have no intuition of being in some sort of dream state here; indeed (and in no way do I think of myself as a Buddhist) the Buddha said that such a belief is a cause of dissatisfaction because people will not face up to reality. But I think we've had this discussion before - you cannot conceive that there are people with no sense of the supernatural

[PeterUK]

What a rich fantasy life you must enjoy.

Very well. I now eagerly await your definition, from an atheist's point of view, of what humour is, especially as I believe it was you who made the valid point that it is not mere joke-telling.

What a rich fantasy life you must enjoy.

Very well. I now eagerly await your definition, from an atheist's point of view, of what humour is, especially as I believe it was you who made the valid point that it is not mere joke-telling.

Better watch out, Pete, or I am going to start nattering on about the self again! :-)

How about this, though: "All attempts to define humor, kill it."

So why should anyone try?

[Bob]

The fact that we humans too often try to analyze everything strikes me as rather odd and funny in itself. Not much that I'm aware of is subject to a "2+2=4" equation, including wit, communications, or relationships. I don't have a clue what makes "humor" humorous, perhaps just a state of mind and willingness to not get too serious about life's foibles. Hey, if it strikes me as funny, it's humorous to me; if not, not.

A lot of it is mood, I suppose. If I'm in the right frame of mind, lots of things are funny. On the other hand, within the first few minutes after I wake, nothing strikes me as humorous (given I'm in a somber even murderous mood for a short while). And, of course, people I like are far more humorous than the toads I dislike.

Okay, enough, nothing funny about these comments... :clown:

[giggsy]

[quote="PeterUK"]A forum member observed recently that humour does not consist in an ability to tell jokes and that's a statement I'm sure most of us can agree with. We've all met the habitual joke-teller who strikes us as anything but humorous. I once had a temporary job working in a warehouse at Heathrow Airport. One of the other storemen would pad up to me ten times a day and ask in a conspiratorial tone of voice if I'd heard the one about blah, blah, blah. I'd listen with mounting tedium (his jokes weren't usually funny at any level) and then reward with a little smile his silly, grinning, expectant face when he'd finished. It was quite obvious to me that he had a mental problem and craved attention and approval. Jokes can be amusing, but there's much more to humour than the ability to tell and appreciate jokes.

So what, then, is humour?


good god man do you never listen to the bee gees

I started a joke, which started the whole world crying,
But I didnt see that the joke was on me, oh no.

I started to cry, which started the whole world laughing,
Oh, if Id only seen that the joke was on me.

I looked at the skies, running my hands over my eyes,
And I fell out of bed, hurting my head from things that Id said.

Til I finally died, which started the whole world living,
Oh, if Id only seen that the joke was on me.

What a rich fantasy life you must enjoy. Very well. I now eagerly await your definition, from an atheist's point of view, of what humour is, especially as I believe it was you who made the valid point that it is not mere joke-telling.I see you're pretty strong on logic too. My first sentence, as is usual in a paragraph, introduced what was to follow ie. if you believe that everyone thinks they exist in a fog of unreality then you must have a rich fantasy life, since I for one do not. I see you have completely ignored that, since it undermines your entire thesis. As for a non-religious view of humour, I can only repeat Malcolm Muggeridge's definition, when he was editor of Punch, and before he got religion - it is the gap between human aspiration and human performance. As you can see, there's nothing about the divine or the supernatural in that. Jane Austen is making a similar point about the nature of humour in the quotation I include in the footer to all my posts

Muggeridge particularly said that the reason there are so much humour about sex is because of the disconnect between aspiration and performance. It was someone else, I think, who made the point about the subject matter of jokes giving us a good clue as to someone's self-anxieties - anxieties also being about the aspiration/performance gap, hence the relationship, although not equation, between jokes and humour

I suspect that humourless George, the joke-teller, will be along shortly to tell us that such an esoteric discussion clearly means that we have too much time on our hands, and how sad that is. I've always thought that curiosity about everything is what will keep me alive and kicking for a few more years yet. Besides, if I don't keep my eyes peeled, I might miss out on some of life's rich tapestry of humour (these cliches are to encourage Doris who's been very unhappy these past few hours since I suggested a career as my publicist was in doubt for the cliche-possessed)

....How about this, though: "All attempts to define humor, kill it."

So why should anyone try?

"The Golden Goose killed itself
trying to look up its ass
to see how it did the trick."

Like pornography, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
I've seen this routine a million times and every time I end up in tears of laughter.

(warning 7 min clip - but worth it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nulb5uSCkwI

Humour is like pornography in that the first time you perceive a particular item is it's most effective instance.

I believe that there are various humour scenarios, some connected with social behaviours and others more to do with reflection on the self.

The assertion that humour is a proprietary domain of the spiritual is part of the spiritual delusion.

[PeterUK]

To all those who have said one can be overanalytical of humour, I would agree - one can overanalyse anything - but the suggestion that any consideration of humour will somehow 'kill it' seems precious and quite wrong to me. It is a perfectly valid exercise to consider the wellspring of humour; it's something that people are curious about and a better understanding of it can add to one's understanding of the nature of reality itself.

Regarding homintern's point about his not agreeing that life is anything other than it appears to be to our normal range of senses, thus invalidating my argument, I would say first of all that my perception of the world is, for all practical purposes, the same - I am no advanced spiritual practitioner, I don't go around having visions or great moments of insight (heck, like others here, I'm still locked into the crazy quest for happiness through self-indulgence!) But I do have a strong intuition in me, bolstered by what I have read, that there is much more to life than the miserly philosophy of materialism would allow and that, in fact, we are part of a psycho-physical reality, not merely a physical one. Intuition is not something that I would expect homintern to be very keen on, since it does not operate as logic does and is not so easily pinned down, but it is real nonetheless and we use it all the time, usually without being aware of doing so. It is on this basis that I say we all have an intuition, however faint and unverbalised in some cases, that the world is not entirely as it seems, thereby making humour possible. The world as it seems is just a vast killing machine forever coming up with new and ingenious ways to grind us down and destroy us. I simply don't think that humour would be possible if that was all there was to it, Malcolm Muggeridge notwithstanding. The only people who have lost all intuition of the greater dimensions of life are mad people and I don't put homintern in that category (yet!)

Incidentally, something that occurred to me after I posted my little article on humour yesterday was how miserable and humourless so many Thai Buddhist monks look, particularly the more senior ones. That gives me no confidence that they are on the right path since spiritual practice should make one radiantly happy over time, not miserable. It's us sinners who are meant to look miserable. It's almost as if Thai monks think they have to look like that to prove that they have rejected the world and all its temptations. A big error and part of the crisis of modern Buddhism, in my opinion.

But I do have a strong intuition in me, bolstered by what I have read, that there is much more to life than the miserly philosophy of materialism would allow and that, in fact, we are part of a psycho-physical reality, not merely a physical one.Like many propagandists, you misrepresent the point of view you oppose, in order to knock it down. I don't see anything in some forms of humanism that can be characterised as a "miserly philosophy of materialism". Perhaps you should read some of Don Cupitt's work - and then get a grip

To all those who have said one can be overanalytical of humour, I would agree - one can overanalyse anything - but the suggestion that any consideration of humour will somehow 'kill it' seems precious and quite wrong to me. It is a perfectly valid exercise to consider the wellspring of humour; it's something that people are curious about and a better understanding of it can add to one's understanding of the nature of reality itself.

Regarding homintern's point about his not agreeing that life is anything other than it appears to be to our normal range of senses, thus invalidating my argument, I would say first of all that my perception of the world is, for all practical purposes, the same - I am no advanced spiritual practitioner, I don't go around having visions or great moments of insight (heck, like others here, I'm still locked into the crazy quest for happiness through self-indulgence!) But I do have a strong intuition in me, bolstered by what I have read, that there is much more to life than the miserly philosophy of materialism would allow and that, in fact, we are part of a psycho-physical reality, not merely a physical one. Intuition is not something that I would expect homintern to be very keen on, since it does not operate as logic does and is not so easily pinned down, but it is real nonetheless and we use it all the time, usually without being aware of doing so. It is on this basis that I say we all have an intuition, however faint and unverbalised in some cases, that the world is not entirely as it seems, thereby making humour possible. The world as it seems is just a vast killing machine forever coming up with new and ingenious ways to grind us down and destroy us. I simply don't think that humour would be possible if that was all there was to it, Malcolm Muggeridge notwithstanding. The only people who have lost all intuition of the greater dimensions of life are mad people and I don't put homintern in that category (yet!)

Incidentally, something that occurred to me after I posted my little article on humour yesterday was how miserable and humourless so many Thai Buddhist monks look, particularly the more senior ones. That gives me no confidence that they are on the right path since spiritual practice should make one radiantly happy over time, not miserable. It's us sinners who are meant to look miserable. It's almost as if Thai monks think they have to look like that to prove that they have rejected the world and all its temptations. A big error and part of the crisis of modern Buddhism, in my opinion.

LOL

[PeterUK]

Buddism is not about being happy, or achieving a state of happiness. And the so called 'miserable' look that anyone (not just monks) can naturally have, bears no relation to true inner feelings.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense on both counts.

Buddism is not about being happy, or achieving a state of happiness. And the so called 'miserable' look that anyone (not just monks) can naturally have, bears no relation to true inner feelings.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense on both counts.


If that was a punchline, I, for one, didn't get it. I can think of several of my acquaintances whose jaw lines and facial bone structures give them naturally miserable expressions. Their lack of a physical smile when relaxed is not indicative of their worldview, so I agree with the fat person's second count. I have insufficient understanding of Buddhist philosophy to comment on the first.

I have taken a tangential interest in the study of humour from the perspective of developers of what so-called computer scientists are won't to call Artificial Intelligence. Some set out to discover what makes us laugh. Findings so far seem to be that much of what makes us laugh isn't pretty i.e. laughter is often a nervous reaction. It can also be a social bonding mechanism. Nobody ever laughs during the seminars though, I assure you.

[giggsy]

the germans are not renowned for there humour but this german clip is about the funniest thing i have ever seen- i dare you to watch it all the way through without laughing out loud,it would make the dalai lama split his sides

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYmsr8Sy4K0

http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221235099&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Buddhism-OPUS-Rupert-Gethin/dp/0192892231/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221234993&sr=1-1

[PeterUK]

Right, I'm back from ogling flesh in go-go bars. Now, where was I? Oh yes, a fuller answer to fattman on the nature of Buddhism... Actually, he's right, I have little real knowledge of Buddhism or any other major world religion for that matter. Acquiring it would mean reading a lot of scholarly texts and frankly I'm not a big fan of what scholars have to say about religion. They almost invariably write from a detached, intellectual point of view and that doesn't much appeal to me. I'm much more interested in what great spiritual practitioners have to say, the saints, yogis and other mystics of the various traditions. These are the people with direct experience of what they speak. Why settle for less? The testimony of such people suggests overwhelmingly that the spiritual path is a great ordeal, but one which leads progressively towards a state of love-bliss as the egoic self falls away and identity with God (or Atman or Brahman or Divine Self or Universal Mind or...) is realised. Their accounts are full of swooning ecstasies of divine devotion. Learning to be happy is absolutely at the core of spiritual life. As the great modern spiritual master, Adi Da, has graphically put it, 'No pleasureless son of a bitch ever realised God.' In the case of Buddhism, every Buddha image I have ever seen has that mysterious, serene smile that indicates a love-blissful state, certainly not some neutral, zero-emotion nothingness. The exuberant superfluity of the universe does not emerge out of nothingness.

As for the question of whether people who look like miserable gits might not actually be miserable gits, okay, I accept the possibility that their miserable gittedness might be diminished somewhat on personal acquaintance, but I don't think I've ever yet spied a miserable git who then turned out to be radiantly happy. The human physiognomy just isn't that malleable. George Orwell once famously observed that 'at fifty everyone has the face he deserves' and I'd pretty much go along with that. I don't, incidentally, think that Thai Buddhism is alone in having so many miserable-looking practitioners. All over the world religions have become dry, corrupt institutions obsessed with rituals and outdated dogmas, many of their followers just going through the motions. Their connection with the Living God has all but ceased and intelligent people must look elsewhere for real spiritual guidance. The crisis in religion is worldwide.

PeterUK has made some bizarre postings lately, including these statements:


I'm still locked into the crazy quest for happiness through self-indulgence!

I feel pretty safe in saying that this is completely contrary to both Buddhism and Christianity.


Right, I'm back from ogling flesh in go-go bars.

More of the same.

But this very same PeterUK somehow feels entitled to lecture us lesser mortals on "spiritual values" and the worldwide crisis in religion. So I am going to deliver a small lecture to PeterUK.

HAPPINESS

Happiness does not consist in getting your genitals rubbed. Happiness is made up of (1) work to do (2) love and (3) responsibility as a member of the community. At least that is one point of view.

After all, at the end of the day, the man who matters most is The Man In The Glass, as a wise Armenian friend put it. Can you look at yourself in the mirror and honestly say, "This is a man I admire?"

But, putting abstract discussions to the side, I was surprised to discover that the greatest happiness of my life was to be found in acting responsibly and keeping my promises. I have a photograph I will treasure for the rest of my life: my greatly loved former BF receiving his college diploma.

And WE made it happen! We had a lot of sex along the way (hooray!), but the important thing was always much more than that. This was something that the gay people in SF missed entirely.

I am not sure you can imagine the happiness that comes from fulfilling a promise, and seeing your boyfriend receive his college diploma.

But I can.

My current boyfriend and I are only a few months away from his high-school diploma. Am I happy about that???????

But I am not aware that my actions are actually approved by any of the Organized Superstitions.

So, anyway, PeterUK, leave off the religious cr*p and do something useful. That is to say, get off your butt and go visit an orphanage, or something. Don't go nattering on about the Great Spirit while your actual physical self restricts itself to the aforementioned rubbing of genitals.

PeterUK has made some bizarre postings lately, including these statements:

[quote]I'm still locked into the crazy quest for happiness through self-indulgence!

I feel pretty safe in saying that this is completely contrary to both Buddhism and Christianity.


Right, I'm back from ogling flesh in go-go bars.

More of the same.

But this very same PeterUK somehow feels entitled to lecture us lesser mortals on "spiritual values" and the worldwide crisis in religion. So I am going to deliver a small lecture to PeterUK.

HAPPINESS

Happiness does not consist in getting your genitals rubbed. Happiness is made up of (1) work to do (2) love and (3) responsibility as a member of the community. At least that is one point of view.

After all, at the end of the day, the man who matters most is The Man In The Glass, as a wise Armenian friend put it. Can you look at yourself in the mirror and honestly say, "This is a man I admire?"

But, putting abstract discussions to the side, I was surprised to discover that the greatest happiness of my life was to be found in acting responsibly and keeping my promises. I have a photograph I will treasure for the rest of my life: my greatly loved former BF receiving his college diploma.

And WE made it happen! We had a lot of sex along the way (hooray!), but the important thing was always much more than that. This was something that the gay people in SF missed entirely.

I am not sure you can imagine the happiness that comes from fulfilling a promise, and seeing your boyfriend receive his college diploma.

But I can.

My current boyfriend and I are only a few months away from his high-school diploma. Am I happy about that???????

But I am not aware that my actions are actually approved by any of the Organized Superstitions.

So, anyway, PeterUK, leave off the religious cr*p and do something useful. That is to say, get off your butt and go visit an orphanage, or something. Don't go nattering on about the Great Spirit while your actual physical self restricts itself to the aforementioned rubbing of genitals.[/quote:a4mfkm8y]

Sorry, missed the punch line in that one too. Was it the bit about you doing his High School diploma? Won't they check ids in the Exam Hall?

[Bob]

Perhaps wise to don one's wadders as it's getting pretty deep in something on this thread. An attempted analysis of humor leads to frowning monks to a wikopedia version of buddhism. God, ain't internet forums grand?

[PeterUK]

Please delete

I have little real knowledge of Buddhism or any other major world religion for that matter.Ain't that the truth! And yet based on some feeling in his "inner self" (which frankly could just be persistent indigestion) PeterUK wants to propose a grand theory of humour. Oh, and his chronic dyspepsia apparently also makes him an expert on what constitutes a "true" religion over the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years - or, in the case of George's "Buddhism", a couple of seconds

Perhaps wise to don one's wadders as it's getting pretty deep in something on this thread. An attempted analysis of humor leads to frowning monks to a wikopedia version of buddhism. God, ain't internet forums grand?

That would be "waders," I think. And "Wikipedia" -- a weird online encyclopedia which I did not reference.

I referred to two BOOKS, Bob. Mostly because I was pretty damned sure that reading those books would be much more informative than reading, for example, me, or Peter, or fattman, on the subject of Buddhism.

Did you actually go and look at those books, Bob? Or were you too busy casting aspersions on others?

[Bob]

That would be "waders," I think. And "Wikipedia" -- a weird online encyclopedia which I did not reference.

I referred to two BOOKS, Bob. Mostly because I was pretty damned sure that reading those books would be much more informative than reading, for example, me, or Peter, or fattman, on the subject of Buddhism.

Did you actually go and look at those books, Bob? Or were you too busy casting aspersions on others?

Yep, Henry, it ought to be "waders."
Nope, haven't read those two books but I have read others regarding Buddhism; regardless, I'm not knowledgeable enough about Buddhism to argue to others what it's all about (and, even if I thought I was knowledgeable enough, I'm sure as hell not going to insert it into Peter's comments about humor let alone anywhere in an internet forum called Sawatdee Gay Thailand). I'll save it for after we have a couple of drinks as alcohol amazingly makes me know more and enables me to wax poetic (ok, sorry, I lied there).

That would be "waders," I think. And "Wikipedia" -- a weird online encyclopedia which I did not reference.

I referred to two BOOKS, Bob. Mostly because I was pretty damned sure that reading those books would be much more informative than reading, for example, me, or Peter, or fattman, on the subject of Buddhism.

Did you actually go and look at those books, Bob? Or were you too busy casting aspersions on others?

Yep, Henry, it ought to be "waders."
Nope, haven't read those two books but I have read others regarding Buddhism; regardless, I'm not knowledgeable enough about Buddhism to argue to others what it's all about (and, even if I thought I was knowledgeable enough, I'm sure as hell not going to insert it into Peter's comments about humor let alone anywhere in an internet forum called Sawatdee Gay Thailand). I'll save it for after we have a couple of drinks as alcohol amazingly makes me know more and enables me to wax poetic (ok, sorry, I lied there).

Ha ha, ho ho! A couple of drinks make me feel the same! I KNOW ALL.

But I didn't mean to imply that you should actually read those books. You could, after all, just check them out on Amazon and look at some of the reviews.

For an example, a review excerpt:


'A man has a faith. If he says "This is my faith", so far he maintains truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: "This alone is Truth, and everything else is false".'
Rahula immediately adds, in his own voice, "In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say 'I believe this'. So far he respects truth. But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false.
The Buddha says: 'To be attached to one thing (to a certain view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior - this the wise men call a fetter'."

[Brad the Impala]

I have little real knowledge of Buddhism or any other major world religion for that matter.Ain't that the truth! And yet based on some feeling in his "inner self" (which frankly could just be persistent indigestion) PeterUK wants to propose a grand theory of humour. Oh, and his chronic dyspepsia apparently also makes him an expert on what constitutes a "true" religion over the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years - or, in the case of George's "Buddhism", a couple of seconds

George's takes a couple of seconds? That long? You old sweet talker you!

[Wesley]

this Jane whoever must have written some bible of some sorts, Homiturn quotes her more than Billy Graham did the new testemet/

Wes

Ha ha, ho ho! A couple of drinks make me feel the same! I KNOW ALL.

This is why some alcoholic beverages are called "spirits". They have the power of spiritual revelation. This is specially true of Lowland Malts such as Glenkinchie.

[Khor tose]

Wes, I read your comments all the time, and I know from my reading that you are a good guy. I would trust you to hold my wallet and I would not have any qualms, but really Wes. What is so hard about Jane Austin? Even if you do not know at the moment, why not take a second to find out? Why not Google Jane Austin and find out what she is about. Better then that read "Pride and Predijuce", specifically Chapter 11 Vol. 1.
If you did that you would not only understand the quote, but have a weapon to use against Homi. I have been tempted to use this against him a coupld of times, but I give you this as a gift, because you are a nice guy. Just before she makes Homi's favorite quote she says, "I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. " I am a great admirer of Homi, but guess what? Homi is not always right, unless he is talking about Henry"s avatar being rabid, which definitely makes Henry a mad dog. Then, sadly, he is probably correct. Although, I would close a kinder description like, "exhibiting a loss of cognitive abilities" .

Just before she makes Homi's favorite quote she says, "I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good."When you find something wise or good in this Forum I hope you'll let me know. I have found very few instances of the good, and even fewer of the wise

[Khor tose]

You mean that none of your 4993 inputs to this board were either wise or good. Quite a confession Homi. I admire your humility.

You mean that none of your 4993 inputs to this board were either wise or good. Quite a confession Homi. I admire your humility.I've steadfastly maintained that I'm only here for the laughs. Such a mission statement used to make Hedda furious and ultimately drove her mad, and from this Board. Anything that others take from my scribblings is entirely At Your Own Risk (AYOR), as the Good Book (aka. Spartacus Gay Guide) puts it

[PeterUK]

Oh, and his chronic dyspepsia apparently also makes him an expert on what constitutes a "true" religion over the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years

If you think I am rejecting the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years, then either I have expressed myself very badly or you have misunderstood what I wrote. I believe that the people worth listening to on religion are the ones who have fulfilled the necessary conditions of direct spiritual knowledge - the saints, yogis, great founders of religions and the like - rather than scholars or other ordinary exoteric believers. A lot of common ground across all traditions is apparent when one considers what these advanced practitoners have to say, allowing for differences of terminology. A book like Aldous Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy', with its extensive quotations from these sources, is well worth reading in this context.

I accept that I sometimes sound a bit didactic when discussing these matters, and I can understand the irritation this might cause others, but Henry Cate DEFINITELY needs to study a course in irony if he thinks I've not shown any humorous awareness of the contradictions of my own position in this thread. And I certainly don't think my postings are any more 'bizarre' than anyone else's on this crazy board.

We seem to have drifted from "humour" into Peter's defense of "religious mysticism."

That is to say, the people who have had Direct Knowledge of the Godhead -- perhaps referring to such as Rumi, and St. John of the Cross, and other mystics worldwide who have experienced "that direct connection with God."

The obvious problem here is that the Buddhist tradition knows all about these experiences and rejects them. The technical term for ecstasy in meditation is jyana, which Buddha himself deplored as a pleasurable byway on the way to true Nirvana.

Of course, if Peter had bothered to read any of these dry, dusty texts written by those horrible old crusty scholars, he would have been aware of this already, and not troubled us with a tradition which Buddhists reject in its entirety.

[Khor tose]

You mean that none of your 4993 inputs to this board were either wise or good. Quite a confession Homi. I admire your humility.I've steadfastly maintained that I'm only here for the laughs. Such a mission statement used to make Hedda furious and ultimately drove her mad, and from this Board. Anything that others take from my scribblings is entirely At Your Own Risk (AYOR), as the Good Book (aka. Spartacus Gay Guide) puts it

Homi, I have to write your name or Henry will think we are talking about him again, as he never reads whom the quote is from, or to whom the MSG is addressed, before he has an answer. It is amazing how this man automatically assumes that he is the center of any conversation he is in. Actually, Henry is the polar opposite of you in some ways, which brings me to the subject of my missive. Homi I always enjoy reading your terse replies and hope you will never stop adding them to the discussions. I have great admiration for you intelligence, education, wit, and---dare I say it---charm. However, I cannot let you take credit for something you have no right to take credit for. Hedda was crazy long before she met you. I believe her problem lies more in the nurturing she received, rather then something physiological. I will credit you, and the rest of the villagers with the pitchforks and torches, with driving her from the board. However, I cannot accept that you were responsible for her madness. I am sure she was drooling at the mouth profusely before she left the board, but she came to the board drooling in the first place.

However, I cannot let you take credit for something you have no right to take credit for. Hedda was crazy long before she met you. I believe her problem lies more in the nurturing she received, rather then something physiological. I will credit you, and the rest of the villagers with the pitchforks and torches, with driving her from the board. However, I cannot accept that you were responsible for her madness. I am sure she was drooling at the mouth profusely before she left the board, but she came to the board drooling in the first place.There's an article in Slate asking why Obama doesn't tell more lies. The nub of the argument is that if you tell a lie often enough, no matter how often others can show it disproved, most people will believe you - http://www.slate.com/id/2199923/

[Wesley]

[quote="Khor tose"]Wes, I read your comments all the time, and I know from my reading that you are a good guy. I would trust you to hold my wallet and I would not have any qualms, but really Wes. What is so hard about Jane Austin? Even if you do not know at the moment, why not take a second to find out? Why not Google Jane Austin and find out what she is about. Better then that read "Pride and Predijuce", specifically Chapter 11 Vol. 1.
If you did that you would not only understand the quote, but have a weapon to use against Homi. I have been tempted to use this against him a coupld of times, but I give you this as a gift, because you are a nice guy. Just before she makes Homi's favorite quote she says, "I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. " I am a great admirer of Homi, but guess what? Homi is not always right, unless he is talking about Henry"s avatar being rabid, which definitely makes Henry a mad dog. Then, sadly, he is probably correct. Although, I would close a kinder description like, "exhibiting a loss of cognitive abilities" .[/quote
I did look up the stuff on the book, I decided it was much to much a part of Homiturn for me to bother with. Had it been anyone else I probably would read the whole book.

[PeterUK]

The obvious problem here is that the Buddhist tradition knows all about these experiences and rejects them. The technical term for ecstasy in meditation is jyana, which Buddha himself deplored as a pleasurable byway on the way to true Nirvana.

Of course, if Peter had bothered to read any of these dry, dusty texts written by those horrible old crusty scholars, he would have been aware of this already, and not troubled us with a tradition which Buddhists reject in its entirety.

So there is no mystical tradition in Buddhism? News to me, Henry. But we are straying into a rarefied area where I have no wish to go. I only got sidetracked from my original theme of the origins of humour because of the extraordinary assertion that Buddhism has nothing to do with happiness. For the two of us, BOTH inclined to succumb to the charms of go-go bars from time to time, to continue to jabber away now about the nature of enlightenment or whatever really would be too funny for words. Enough already.

I only got sidetracked from my original theme of the origins of humour because of the extraordinary assertion that Buddhism has nothing to do with happiness. Why is this extraordinary - it's very well-known? Buddhism has to do with self-forgetfulness*. Happiness - or more particularly its pursuit - is something the Buddha pointed out is a delusion and one of the causes of dukha (either "suffering" or more generally "dissatisfaction" - even you ought to be able to see the connection). I note you have adopted catawampuscat's posting technique - once you have made a foolish statement you cannot escape it's "enough already"

* indeed, "dying to self" is a common theme of the great religions, as any educated person knows

[PeterUK]

Why is this extraordinary - it's very well-known? Buddhism has to do with self-forgetfulness*. Happiness - or more particularly its pursuit - is something the Buddha pointed out is a delusion and one of the causes of dukha (either "suffering" or more generally "dissatisfaction" - even you ought to be able to see the connection).

Okay, homintern, well done, you bring me straight out of retirement from this thread to rebut your charge. Please be specific - what do you mean, happiness itself or its pursuit? They are two different things. The pursuit of happiness is what we all do as ordinary egos and it is indeed founded on a sense of dissatisfaction. But happiness itself is our prior state, merely obscured by the self-contraction (or ego). It need not be searched for, it is already there. The practical Buddhist emphasis on understanding ourselves and removing the causes of suffering then gradually reveals it again beneath the layers of ego. Please quote me an instance where the Buddha refers to happiness itself as a delusion. What he is credited as saying, though famously reticent about it, is that Nirvana is 'the highest happiness' - hardly the words of someone who considers happiness a delusion.

[Brad the Impala]

Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others.

Buddha

But happiness itself is our prior state, merely obscured by the self-contraction (or ego)Prior to what? When did it exist if we have to search for it again? http://www.seattlebetsuin.com/what_is_happiness.htm

[PeterUK]

Good quote, Brad. And homintern - happiness is our true condition, prior to the ego. It does not have to be searched for, merely revealed through a life of authentic spiritual practice. In Buddhist terminology, this condition is the Buddha Nature, which the Buddha is said to have described as 'radiantly luminous' and 'as indestructible as a diamond'. In one of the Sutras it is said that 'the Buddha Nature is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure.' To tie this in with my original post on humour, it is the intuition of our true condition that makes humour possible. Sorry if I'm sounding didactic again. I only talk the talk, I don't walk the walk - very few people in any generation do.

Sorry if I'm sounding didactic again. I only talk the talk, I don't walk the walk - very few people in any generation do.I think your earlier comment about not understanding religion comes into play here. What you have written is the biggest load of psycho-babble and gobbledegook I've read in a very long time. However I look forward to your citing chapter and verse from some senior Buddhist writers to support your argument, as I'm confident you'll be able to do - just as I have done. You did read that hyperlink, didn't you?

[PeterUK]

I think your earlier comment about not understanding religion comes into play here. What you have written is the biggest load of psycho-babble and gobbledegook I've read in a very long time. However I look forward to your citing chapter and verse from some senior Buddhist writers to support your argument, as I'm confident you'll be able to do - just as I have done. You did read that hyperlink, didn't you?

I have read the article and see nothing to disagree with in it. The authentic spiritual practice I refer to is all about weakening the small self through devotion to the Divine and service to others ('Love God and be love in all your relations' in Christian terminology) - that's how our True Self or whatever one wants to call it gradually takes over the individual. You think I'm advocating some kind of spiritual fun-spree or self-glorification??? It's the difficulty of a truly spiritual life, as opposed to all the phoney New Age substitutes, that made me add that its appeal is limited to a very few people in any generation. And incidentally, I never said I don't understand religion (a typical piece of misrepresentation on your part); what I said was that I have little understanding of particular religions - their doctrines, rituals and so on. I have a very good understanding of what an authentic spiritual life entails, whether one calls oneself a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

Anyway, it is quite clear to me that you are not really interested in an intelligent conversation about these matters. Every attempt by me to explain myself politely has been met with your usual arrogance and snidey comments. Your much-vaunted sense of humour is a bastardisation of real humour. Truly humorous people don't seek to sneer at others and be hurtful. I'll leave you to continue to play your little games - water off a duck's back to me.

... PeterUK
1 believes there's some sort of divine being, based on "intuition"
2 understands the basis of all religions without knowing the specifics of any of them

What an interesting set of beliefs - mostly about himself!

As a nice Jewish boy myself, I can recognize Peter's thoughts about happiness being taken away by ego. There's the same story in the Torah (in the Book of Genesis) where Adam and Eve inhabit the Garden of Eden (happiness) until Sin (ego) gets in the way and they are thrown out. I though Peter's response to the Colonel was excellent. Instead of citing an authority for his case, as the Colonel did via his link, instead Peter changed the agenda by making a personal attack on the Colonel. But it left me wondering what Peter's authority is. Maybe the attack was his diversion as he doesn't have one?

It really took you, PeterUK, that long to realize that Homintern was the Archetypal WGF (Whining Gay Farang)?

If I were you (and I'm not) I would slow down on the sermons about Buddhism, especially since they are accompanied by postings which say that you don't know anything about Buddhism.

As that great philosopher Santayana said, "There are many great religions in the world, and they are all without exception false."

As that great philosopher Santayana said, "There are many great religions in the world, and they are all without exception false."

I love Santayana! I saw them in concert once and they killed on Black Magic Woman.

Wes, I read your comments all the time, and I know from my reading that you are a good guy. I would trust you to hold my wallet and I would not have any qualms, but really Wes. What is so hard about Jane Austin? Even if you do not know at the moment, why not take a second to find out? Why not Google Jane Austin and find out what she is about. Better then that read "Pride and Predijuce", specifically Chapter 11 Vol. 1.
If you did that you would not only understand the quote, but have a weapon to use against Homi. I have been tempted to use this against him a coupld of times, but I give you this as a gift, because you are a nice guy. Just before she makes Homi's favorite quote she says, "I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. " I am a great admirer of Homi, but guess what? Homi is not always right, unless he is talking about Henry"s avatar being rabid, which definitely makes Henry a mad dog. Then, sadly, he is probably correct. Although, I would close a kinder description like, "exhibiting a loss of cognitive abilities" .

Well, I may be "exhibiting a loss of cognitive abilities," but you can't even spell the name of Jane Austen! DUH! DUH! and triple DUH!

Hmm, I also note that you cannot successfully write "Pride and Prejudice."

I think I'll take my loss of cognitive abilities over your full-blown brain power any old day.