Buddhists Really Are Happier

bjornte writes "For anyone that wonders what Richard Gere is up to, the BBC explains: 'Scientists say they have evidence to show that Buddhists really are happier and calmer than other people. Tests carried out in the United States reveal that areas of their brain associated with good mood and positive feelings are more active.' So, if you're suffering from the ongoing IT slump..."

Comments

mentality not the religion

[Joe the Lesser]

These findings would be better stated as 'calm and stressless lifestyle is happier'. It has nothing to do with religion, just that fact that Buddhists are smart enough not to get worked up over stupid things like getting cut off in traffic or being late to a meeting.

Or even simpler, as was taught when I was younger: Don't worry, be happy.

Re:mentality not the religion

[torpor]

You're perverting the sense and definition of religion here.

Religion is *supposed* to give you the tools to lead a calmer, less stresseful, happier life. If it doesn't, its not working as a religion.

Those who would stand to benefit from an un-calm, stressy society (WMH, Eli Lilli and Co.) seek to actively denigrate religions' potential for delivering calm, stressless people, and those who have bought the humanist party line from the last 20 years that "All Religion Is Bad, The pseudo-science of Psychology is the Only Way" support them in their effort to discount the positive effects which religion can have on a persons well-being.

All religion is not bad. Buddhists *do* lead happier lives than the anti-religion types... most of whom are pretty stressy people. I'm yet to meet a Buddhist (true buddhist, not dilletantes) who wasn't a happy, fun person to be around, generally.

Make your own determination of the value of religion in modern society if you will, but discount its worth and positive value at your own peril ...

Re:mentality not the religion

[ichimunki]

The salient point of the article is not that Buddhism per se is a "happier religion" (which you kind of pointed out) but that there seems to be scientific evidence for the idea that a regular program of a certain kind of meditative practice can have a positive effect on the brain.

The activity, which meditation most certainly is, is not unlike parts of standard hypnotherapy or yoga. Concentrating on nothing or simply on breathing, putting the body into a state of complete relaxation, etc, are not unique ideas to Buddhism. In fact, the same positive effects may well flow from other more overtly religious activities like saying the Rosary.

But scientists haven't studied that as much I'm guessing-- perhaps because prominent Catholics aren't as interested in working with science as prominent Buddhists are. The Dalai Lama meets regularly with western scientists and pseudo-scientists to discuss similarities and differences between Buddhist thought and scientific theory. Further, Buddhism generally says that there is no infallible word of God, which may or may not be contradicted by scientific evidence, so Buddhists do not cling to their beliefs out of "faith", but generally welcome any opportunity for greater understanding.

And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit. ;)

Re:mentality not the religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because there is a correlation between Buddhists and happiness does not mean that religion has any soothing abilities. It may very well be that those who are calmer, happier people would be the most likely to take up/continue to practice Buddhism. Especially in the United States, where Buddhism is not at all a majority religion.

Re:mentality not the religion

[speaker4thedead]

In Buddhism, Karma is not seen as a physical or metaphysical force that forces you to pay back your evil deeds, but rather as a psychological principle.

I could go on for a while about this, but I'll try to keep it short.

Ideally, once an action has happened, it is gone. Our mind, however, likes to hold on to what was and will not let go. Since the past is already gone, it is not a good place for the mind to dwell. Your karma is the part of you that holds onto the past and measure the present in terms of the past. If you measure the present in terms of the past, then you see more of what was than what is. A buddhist strives to see things as they are in the present (this is what meditation teaches) No buddhist claims that they will ever be free of karma, of their attachment to the past, but if they could be, they would be "enlightened."

A quick example: Let's say that you spent the past two years building your own house by hand. On the night that you move into the house, it burns down. If you hold on to the past and your memories of what was, then you will suffer at the thought of loss and the "wasted" time you spent building the house. If you see things as they are, then you will be happy that you are alive and start planning for a new place to live and perhaps rebuilding the house.

Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Jerf]

There's not enough detail in the article to know whether this is a problem, but it looks like there's at least potential for a serious "correlation implies causation" error. Does Buddhism make people happy, or do people who are already happy become Buddhists?

I'm also not sure how "calm" got transformed into "happy" in the article. My personal definition of "happy" doesn't really have much to do with "hard to scare".

The study is interesting to some degree but drawing conclusion from it is unwarrented, until more data is collected from more sources.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Goronguer]

Does Buddhism make people happy, or do people who are already happy become Buddhists?

Here's an anecdotal, unscientific answer for you. In the nine years since I became a practicing Buddhist, I have become happier and happier, and I am definitely happier than I was before I became a Buddhist. I know many other Buddhists who could tell you the same thing about their own experience.

I'm also not sure how "calm" got transformed into "happy" in the article. My personal definition of "happy" doesn't really have much to do with "hard to scare".

Though I might quibble with the particular wording, here is an example of what is meant.

When you encounter an obstacle in your life, do you freak out and ask "WHY ME?", or do you face it calmly and rationally, with the confidence that you are up to the challenge. Since I have become a Buddhist, I increasingly find myself taking the latter approach.

Less time spent freaking out = more time spent being happy.

Take a look at the website of the SGI-USA if you are interested in learning more.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[qengho]

No worship of gods and deities indeed, but worship of budda.

Not worship, but reverence. The Buddha is not considered a deity like Christ, or someone with a direct line to God like Mohammed, but rather a regular guy who thought real hard about What It's All About and came up with an interesting insight, for which his followers are grateful.

Reincarnation.

[I am Jack's username]

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." - George Bernard Shaw, 1912, Androcles and the lion

"Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition." - Freedom from religion foundation

"Thus that which is the most awful of evils, death, is nothing to us, since when we exist there is no death, and when there is death we do not exist." - Epicurus, 341/270 BCE

I do however agree with: "Doubt everything. Find your own light." - Siddhartha Gautama (circa 563/483 BCE).

Re:Theravada & Mahayana

[qengho]

(Much of the following comes from The Shambala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen).

Mahayana Buddhism...contains a diversity of mystical, magical beliefs

Mystical, perhaps, but I wouldn't call them magical beliefs. Theravada (the only surviving school of the Hinayana, or "Lesser Vehicle" branch of Buddhism), emphasizes the liberation of the individual. The ideal figure of Theravada is the arhat, a person who has achieved true enlightenment through his own efforts and whose existence will be extinguished following this life, i.e., no more reincarnations.

Mahayana buddhists, in contrast, seek to attain enlightenment for the sake of the welfare of all beings. Their ideal figure is the bodhisattva, a person who has achieved perfect wisdom but renounces complete entry into nirvana until all beings are enlightened. Some of these bodhisattvas are considered to be "transcendent beings" who appear in various forms to lead others to wisdom. That's pretty mystical, but no supernatural powers (loaves and fishes, anyone?) are attributed to bodhisattvas.

Now Tibetan buddhists, they have magic and deities out the wazoo. A truly interesting and baroque variant.

the original post...glossed over the diversity of beliefs regarding the Buddha and the mystical nature, including worship, contained in many of them.

Guilty as charged. I was trying to address the original generalization, but fell short. I'm most familiar with Zen buddhism, which definitely does not worship the Buddha. It's not even a religion, really.

The clearest explanation of the core concepts of Buddhism I've run across is What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.