3rd Noble Truth?

[SUPERMAN]

According to the third noble truth of Buddhism, if we give up our craving and learn to live each day one at a time (not dwelling in the past or what might happen in the future) then we can become happy and free.  Does this noble truth encourage unemployment, failed future commitments, and a general tendancy for a disorganized lifestyle? 

[gluadys]

According to the third noble truth of Buddhism, if we give up our craving and learn to live each day one at a time (not dwelling in the past or what might happen in the future) then we can become happy and free.  Does this noble truth encourage unemployment, failed future commitments, and a general tendancy for a disorganized lifestyle? 

LOL.  No more than Jesus' advice to "Take no thought for the morrow."

And, of course, the four noble truths have to be put together.  The way to achieve the third noble truth is to put the fourth noble truth into practice i.e. to follow the eight-fold path, a path which specifically includes "right livelihood." 

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

See also: Buddhist precepts

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

[metis]

According to the third noble truth of Buddhism, if we give up our craving and learn to live each day one at a time (not dwelling in the past or what might happen in the future) then we can become happy and free.  Does this noble truth encourage unemployment, failed future commitments, and a general tendancy for a disorganized lifestyle? 

Quite the opposite.  True love and compassion towards all sentient beings is not considered a "craving" (better to use the word "attachment") since it's considered just the ideal nature of what we should be as social animals.  And since unemployment and failed commitments would probably cause suffering in others, they obviously would not fit into dharma's intent.  And since analytical (or contemplative) meditation is one technique used by a great many Buddhists, one end product of that should be a much more organized lifestyle. 

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Glu,

Superman:  According to the third noble truth of Buddhism, if we give up our craving and learn to live each day one at a time (not dwelling in the past or what might happen in the future) then we can become happy and free.  Does this noble truth encourage unemployment, failed future commitments, and a general tendancy for a disorganized lifestyle? 

Glu:  LOL.  No more than Jesus' advice to "Take no thought for the morrow."

We have a fairly good idea what Jesus was getting at based upon the context of the passage.  Can we say the same for Buddha?  For instance, the third noble truth appears to state that attachment to transient things will inevitably lead to suffering.  Therefore, it appears necessary to remove the attachment in order to end the suffering.  Does "attachment" mean "worrying" as Jesus was alluding to?

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Vern,

Quite the opposite.  True love and compassion towards all sentient beings is not considered a "craving" (better to use the word "attachment") since it's considered just the ideal nature of what we should be as social animals.  

I'm not sure anyone said it was.

And since unemployment and failed commitments would probably cause suffering in others, they obviously would not fit into dharma's intent.  

Only if there was an attachment to them, right? 

And since analytical (or contemplative) meditation is one technique used by a great many Buddhists, one end product of that should be a much more organized lifestyle.

Why?

[metis]

Only if there was an attachment to them, right? 

And since analytical (or contemplative) meditation is one technique used by a great many Buddhists, one end product of that should be a much more organized lifestyle.

Why?

I'm not certain what you're asking for in the first question.  As for the 2nd, any kind of thinking in regards to what we might or should be doing hopefully would end up making us more organized, so I certainly don't see much controversy in that.  Do you?

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

I'm not certain what you're asking for in the first question.  As for the 2nd, any kind of thinking in regards to what we might or should be doing hopefully would end up making us more organized, so I certainly don't see much controversy in that.  Do you?

Concerning the first question, it would appear that unemployment and failed future commitments would only lead to suffering if there was a pre-existing attachment to them already.  If one masters the lack of attachment to transient things, then suffering cannot exist.  If your concern is that unemployment and failed future commitments of one will undoubtedly cause suffering to others, then perhaps the "unmaking" of attachment shouldn't be a noble truth?

Concerning "thinking," if our non-attachment to a transient thing called organization is possible, then it would appear to me that disorganization would result.  Would it not?

-Acumen

[metis]

Concerning the first question, it would appear that unemployment and failed future commitments would only lead to suffering if there was a pre-existing attachment to them already.  If one masters the lack of attachment to transient things, then suffering cannot exist.  If your concern is that unemployment and failed future commitments of one will undoubtedly cause suffering to others, then perhaps the "unmaking" of attachment shouldn't be a noble truth?

OK, I see where you're coming from, so thanks for the clarification.  When we deal with the term eliminating "attachments", don't think in terms of being uncaring.  For example, HHDL often speaks in terms of a concern for others, and if we are truly compassionate, we should be definitely concerned at times.  And there's nothing intrinsically wrong about being at least somewhat concerned about ourselves as well.  It's when these "concerns" become problems in and of themselves that they become "attachments".


   

Concerning "thinking," if our non-attachment to a transient thing called organization is possible, then it would appear to me that disorganization would result.  Would it not?

It shouldn't.  Everything appears to be "transient" by all indications, so through analytical meditation, or just plain old-fashioned "thinking", we hopefully can better understand the process.  The pattern with this type of meditation often works this way:

Take the situation under consideration and begin to eliminate the "baggage" that we tend to attach to it.  For example, if I say "democracy", different people will attach different baggage to that concept, and you and I will tend to have different "baggage" than let's say a jihadist.  Once we isolate the situation down to its core (which we could call "the bottom line"), then we begin the building process to better understand what the implications may well be. 

Note there's no magic involved here-- just the old boot camp technique of tearing down and building back up, but in this case to "see" it as it is, even though it's still in transition (which is part of the "seeing"), and then dealing with the ramifications of what we "see".



Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

An example of my response to Acumen's 2nd question just came to mind.

There's an encouragement for us to meditate on our own death during our evening meditation since we'll arrive at that juncture sooner or later (hopefully the latter).  Part of the purpose of this meditation is to deal with our transition from life into death and what it involves and may imply, so when this event happens, we're better prepared for it.  And we also are encouraged to deal with the eventual death of loved one's that surround us as well. 

To some, this may sound rather morbid but, to us, it's just an attempt to deal with what's almost assuredly is going to happen. 

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

OK, I see where you're coming from, so thanks for the clarification.  When we deal with the term eliminating "attachments", don't think in terms of being uncaring.  For example, HHDL often speaks in terms of a concern for others, and if we are truly compassionate, we should be definitely concerned at times.  And there's nothing intrinsically wrong about being at least somewhat concerned about ourselves as well.  It's when these "concerns" become problems in and of themselves that they become "attachments".

Right, but being concerned is a type of attachment, is it not?  And if I love someone, that form of attachment will cause suffering if that person were to die, would it not?

[gluadys]

Glu,

Superman:  According to the third noble truth of Buddhism, if we give up our craving and learn to live each day one at a time (not dwelling in the past or what might happen in the future) then we can become happy and free.  Does this noble truth encourage unemployment, failed future commitments, and a general tendancy for a disorganized lifestyle? 

Glu:  LOL.  No more than Jesus' advice to "Take no thought for the morrow."

We have a fairly good idea what Jesus was getting at based upon the context of the passage.  Can we say the same for Buddha?  For instance, the third noble truth appears to state that attachment to transient things will inevitably lead to suffering.  Therefore, it appears necessary to remove the attachment in order to end the suffering.  Does "attachment" mean "worrying" as Jesus was alluding to?

-Acumen

To some extent, yes.  I am nowhere nearly as deeply versed in Buddhism as Vern is, so I cannot remember the source of this remark, but it is along the lines of "No one is so thirsty as the one who has a full well and worries about having enough to drink tomorrow."  So, there is a quality of not tackling tomorrow's troubles until tomorrow brings them.

Of course, this is not the same thing as saying we should not try to prepare for tomorrow in a rational fashion, but to become anxious and worried only uses energy inappropriately.  Rational preparation for inevitable change should relieve anxiety, not cause it. 

As with meditation on one's own death or the death of a loved one.  Non-attachment to one's own biological existence means one can rationally draw up a will and arrange for insurance without those activities producing emotional distress.  And it saves a lot of distress in the family when the inevitability of mortality catches up with us. 

[metis]

Right, but being concerned is a type of attachment, is it not?  And if I love someone, that form of attachment will cause suffering if that person were to die, would it not?

Yes, it very well might.  Since we are human (as you can tell from my avatar), and since we often are emotional at times, it is quite understandable that we may have emotional reactions of sorrow, and that can be a problem.  Our main concern then would be to not allow ourselves to dwell on this sorrow or allow it to hurt us more.  No one said it would be easy.

While learning dharma, one of the most difficult things to understand for me was this issue of “attachments”.  If I eliminate attachments, does that mean I can’t love my wife, like good food, get emotionally involved during a good movie, etc?  Yes, I can.  But what I shouldn’t do is to allow those things to dominate me or to somehow see them as being integral to myself whereas if I can’t have them, it causes distress. 

You’ve undoubtedly heard the Buddhist expressions “everything in moderation, nothing to extreme” or “the middle way” (these are not to be taken as absolutes or they would also become attachments).  It becomes a matter of putting things into a perspective that helps us to understand and to deal with life’s many problems and many joys.

Shalom,
Vern   

[Acumen]

Vern,


While learning dharma, one of the most difficult things to understand for me was this issue of “attachments”.  If I eliminate attachments, does that mean I can’t love my wife, like good food, get emotionally involved during a good movie, etc?  Yes, I can.  But what I shouldn’t do is to allow those things to dominate me or to somehow see them as being integral to myself whereas if I can’t have them, it causes distress.

Perhaps I misunderstood what I read about Buddhism.  I thought Buddhism taught that when one reaches Nirvana, that one is free of suffering?  If one loves his wife, and his wife dies an untimely death, then wouldn't there be suffering?  Or to put it differently, are love and nirvana opposed to each other because of our attachment to the things we love?

[metis]

Perhaps I misunderstood what I read about Buddhism.  I thought Buddhism taught that when one reaches Nirvana, that one is free of suffering?  If one loves his wife, and his wife dies an untimely death, then wouldn't there be suffering?  Or to put it differently, are love and nirvana opposed to each other because of our attachment to the things we love?

First of all, let me just say that I do not believe in nirvana, which is not to deny its hypothetical possibility, which is allowable within Buddhism btw (except for the "purists" of course).  But let me deal with your point as if I did.

There's simply nothing "wrong" with love of all sentient beings, including our spouses, and that's not considered an "attachment" unless the loss causes us problems.  And Buddhism does not think it's likely that our soul ("atman"-- some even question its existence) is an unchanging entity, therefore nirvana is not considered likely to be a steady state.  The reason is due to our observations and experiences that all things that we experience tend to change over time.

Once nirvana is reached, all suffering has been eliminated, which would include mourning for our spouse.  We would realize that our suffering prior to that was actually selfishness to a large extent since we're grieving over OUR loss.  "Our" spouse, meanwhile has moved on (again changing), either to nirvana or to a temporary "hell" or is being reborn.

Shalom,
Vern   

[sobeit9]

According to the third noble truth of Buddhism, if we give up our craving and learn to live each day one at a time (not dwelling in the past or what might happen in the future) then we can become happy and free.  Does this noble truth encourage unemployment, failed future commitments, and a general tendancy for a disorganized lifestyle?

I believe that Buddhism suffers the same fate as Christianity.  Just as Christianity becomes Christendom, Buddhism becomes many sects including "western Buddhism" which often leads one into the dreamland you've described where meditation becomes escapism. 

This idea of becoming "happy and free" attracts this idea also of lacking objective purpose.  The idea is that for some reason I got onto the wheel of samsara and held here through attachments.  The way to get off is to become detached.  But this raises the question amongst others of why that which is represented by my external life became attached to begin with? 

Probably Simone's observation of suffering and Christianity would seem repulsive to western Buddhism that just seeks the avoidance of suffering but IMO it is a profound truth which is both within Christianity and Buddhism though lacking in both Christendom and western Buddhism.  It suggests an inner essential "need" that is not of the same quality as an outer acquired "craving."  In Christianity it is the soul's love for God which is different than compassion for the world.

"The tremendous greatness of Christianity", writes Simone Weil, "comes from the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy against suffering but a supernatural use of suffering."

The remedy then is not to give up craving to live in la la land but rather to be able to consciously witness it, carry ones cross, become vulnerable to experience the truth of ourselves and allow help from above to enter into this vulnerability so that we can inwardly grow towards freedom.

[metis]

I believe that Buddhism suffers the same fate as Christianity.  Just as Christianity becomes Christendom, Buddhism becomes many sects including "western Buddhism" which often leads one into the dreamland you've described where meditation becomes escapism.

Meditation is never "escapism", unless one is referring to the effect of nirvana.  There are many forms of meditation, but none of them involve any kind of "escape".  And it serves to logic in that how could one become enlightened through "escapism"? 

Zen is the only school that encourages meditation without purpose, since it generally teaches that enlightenment will most likely occur as an intuitive "flash", whereas the pieces of life's zig-saw puzzle become clear enough to see what the picture is generally about.  However, it is not "escapism" in any way, shape, or form.  In that school, intensive study, which is common amongst most other rafts, is actually discouraged because it may be a possible block to enlightenment.
   

 

This idea of becoming "happy and free" attracts this idea also of lacking objective purpose.  The idea is that for some reason I got onto the wheel of samsara and held here through attachments.  The way to get off is to become detached.  But this raises the question amongst others of why that which is represented by my external life became attached to begin with? 

Dharma has "objective purpose" in that it teaches that we are to attempt to alleviate the suffering of all sentient beings.  It also has "objective purpose" in regards to seeking nirvana and to help others do the same.  If one reads pretty much any of the Buddhist books that are available, you'll see plenty of "objective purposes". 

One of the most significant of the "objective purposes" is to see what is "reality" primarily through our own observations and experiences, helped along with training from our teachers, the scriptures, reading, etc.  If there was no "objective purpose" to dharma, then what would be taught or what would we read?  And why would Einstein have said that if he were to join any religious faith, it would be Buddhism because of its emphasis on objectivity.

Gotta go.



Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

From Buddhanet.net:

"The Four Bodhisattva Vows

1. I vow to rescue the boundless living beings from suffering; (Link to 1st Truth)
2. I vow to put an end to the infinite afflictions of living beings; (Link to 2nd Truth)
3. I vow to learn the measureless Dharma-doors; (Link to 4th Truth)
4. I vow to realise the unsurpassed path of the Buddha. (Link to 3th Truth)

The Five Precepts

I undertake to:

1. Abstain from killing living beings;
2. Abstain from taking that which not given;
3. Abstain from sexual misconduct;
4. Abstain from false speech;
5. Abstain from distilled substances that confuse the mind. (Alcohol and Drugs)

The underlying principle is non-exploitation of yourself or others. The precepts are the foundation of all Buddhist training. With a developed ethical base, much of the emotional conflict and stress that we experience is resolved, allowing commitment and more conscious choice. Free choice and intention is important. It is "I undertake" not 'Thou Shalt". Choice, not command.

The Five Precepts in positive terms

I undertake the training precept to:

1. Act with Loving-kindness;
2. Be open hearted and generous;
3. Practice stillness, simplicity and contentment;
4. Speak with truth, clarity and peace;
5. Live with mindfulness.

The Ten Paramita

Paramita means gone to the other shore, it is the highest development of each of these qualities.

1. Giving or Generosity; *
2. Virtue, Ethics, Morality; *
3. Renunciation, letting go, not grasping;
4. Panna or Prajna "Wisdom" insight into the nature of reality; *
5. Energy, vigour, vitality, diligence; *
6. Patience or forbearance; *
7. Truthfulness;
8. Resolution, determination, intention;
9. Kindness, love, friendliness;
10. Equanimity.

* In Mahayana Buddhism, 6 are emphasised, they are, numbers l., 2., 4., 5., 6., Samadhi (see Path) & 4.

The Four Sublime or Uplifted States

1. Metta — Friendliness, Loving-kindness;
2. Karuna — Compassion;
3. Mudita — Joy, Gladness. Appreciation of good qualities in people;
4. Upekkha — Equanimity, the peaceful unshaken mind.

Full development of these four states develops all of the Ten Paramita.

The Five Powers or Spiritual Faculties

1.Faith, Confidence;
2. Energy, Effort;
3. Mindfulness;
4. Samadhi;
5. Wisdom.

The Five Hindrances

1. Sense craving;
2. Ill-will;
3. Sloth and Torpor;
4, Restlessness and Worry;
5. Toxic doubt and the ruthless inner critic." ...

"Loving-kindness is a meditation practice, which brings about positive attitudinal changes as it systematically develops the quality of 'loving-acceptance'. It acts, as it were, as a form of self-psychotherapy, a way of healing the troubled mind to free it from its pain and confusion. Of all Buddhist meditations, loving-kindness has the immediate benefit of sweetening and changing old habituated negative patterns of mind.

To put it into its context, Loving-kindness is the first of a series of meditations that produce four qualities of love: Friendliness (metta), Compassion (karuna), Appreciative Joy (mudita) and Equanimity (upekkha). The quality of 'friendliness' is expressed as warmth that reaches out and embraces others. When loving-kindness practice matures it naturally overflows into compassion, as one empathises with other people's difficulties; on the other hand one needs to be wary of pity, as its near enemy, as it merely mimics the quality of concern without empathy. The positive expression of empathy is an appreciation of other people's good qualities or good fortune, or appreciative joy, rather than feelings of jealousy towards them. This series of meditations comes to maturity as 'on-looking equanimity'. This 'engaged equanimity' must be cultivated within the context of this series of meditations, or there is a risk of it manifesting as its near enemy, indifference or aloofness. So, ultimately you remain kindly disposed and caring toward everybody with an equal spread of loving feelings and acceptance in all situations and relationships." ...

"Question:
So you are saying that we are best able to help others after we have helped ourselves. Isn't that a bit selfish?

Answer:
We usually see altruism, concern for others before oneself, as being the opposite of selfishness, concern for oneself before others. Buddhism does not see it as either one or the other but rather as a blending of the two. Genuine self-concern will gradually mature into concern for others as one sees that others are really the same as oneself. This is genuine compassion and it is the most beautiful jewel in the crown of the Buddha's teaching."

For anyone interested in a basic approach to dharma, let me recommend the book "Buddhism: Plain and Simple" by Steven Hagen, which is a book that I often recommended to some of my students when they were first starting out.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,


There's simply nothing "wrong" with love of all sentient beings, including our spouses, and that's not considered an "attachment" unless the loss causes us problems.

I don't know of many loving spouses that wouldn't suffer as a result an untimely death.  I think this is a serious objection to buddhism, at least for those who believe in Nirvana.

Concerning your viewpoint, if you don't believe in Nirvana, then do you believe that one can be free of all suffering?

[metis]

I don't know of many loving spouses that wouldn't suffer as a result an untimely death.  I think this is a serious objection to buddhism, at least for those who believe in Nirvana.

Why is this a "serious objection to Buddhism"?  No one said the process would be easy.  On top of that, I'm not sure that there can be a total elimination of suffering during one's life time unless their e.e.g. is flat-line.  Even if it's not possible to eliminate suffering in its entirety, we certainly can ameliorate it and possibly shorten its duration. 

To me, the process makes a great deal of sense because I have experienced it for myself in regards to things that go wrong and attempting to deal with them.  But my progress is slow enough whereas if I die soon and am reborn, I'll probably come back as a guppy.
 

Concerning your viewpoint, if you don't believe in Nirvana, then do you believe that one can be free of all suffering?

Probably when I'm dead.  But if I wake up in a fish tank...



Shalom,
Vern

[sobeit9]

Vern

We seem to me at least to be so far apart on this that I doubt we could understand each other.  but for the sake of others with an interest in Buddhism I think it is good that alternatives to what you've posted be included here..

I look at what you've posted as New Age Buddhism.  it speaks of wonderful ideas and attitudes but conveniently avoiding our nature that does not allow for it.  Jesus went through it with the Pharisees.  It is one thing to talk the talk but quite another to walk the walk.  It is one thing to post a a lot of inspiring definitions but quite another to deal with the reality of the human condition as the "wretched man."  Without dealing with it, Buddhism cannot be other than escapism from our nature.

What good is conditioning?  You speak of this "loving-kindness meditation as a good thing because of how it conditions someone.  But conditioning is not understanding so its value is limited to societal values.  Since it isn't "understood" it is just words which easily turn on themselves.  This is why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  It sounds good but we are as we are.

This is modern Western Buddhism which is not the Buddhism I respect.  Consider the following article:

http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/dtalk-95may22.html

When we look inside -- when we wonder who and what we are and what's going on, when we ask who or what am I, who is experiencing our experience -- what do we find, if anything? Who am I? What am I? Where is the experiencer? Is it in my head? My brain? My heart? My legs? What do we find? Do we really exist as we think we do? Am I different than you? Are we who we think we are? That's the main subject of self-inquiry in Dharma -- to know one's self; to know one's true nature; to realize who and what we all are; to recognize the Buddha-nature, the transpersonal, innate nature, not just our superficial, momentary, conditioned personality, which is just the tip of the iceberg.

The original teacher of Buddhism in this world (Lord Buddha, the Awakened One, 563-483 B.C., India) gave his idea about who and what we are. We can use that as a framework, rather than just wandering around with "Oh, I don't know who I am" or "Who could know?" or "Who knows," always passing the buck. In truth the buck stops here, in your own lap. That's the bad news. But that's also the good news -- that mastery is in one's hands. We can know ourselves, as Socrates (among others) exhorted us. And this self-knowledge will make us free.

We have, or we are, a form. But what else are we? Are we just a body? Are we just flesh and blood, from dust to dust, as it says? The Buddha said we are the five skandhas. The word skandha is a tough word to translate. It means heap, aggregate, or component of individuality. We are five of these. Just check it out and let's see what it means, and what else there might be, if anything at all.

First, form: Solidity, earth element, shape.

Second, feelings: Sensations. Not just emotional feelings, but also physical sensations and so on. Whatever we feel.

The third skandha is perceptions: Experiences, like thoughts, sights, sounds, and so on. In the second and third skandhas, in feelings and perceptions, liking and not liking arise. That's when the whole problem, the whole duality, the whole push and shove starts. The entire, exhausting treadmill or roller coaster of ups and downs.

The fourth is will or volition: Intending to do things. That's where karma comes in. Liking and not liking arise, then from that devolves reactions. Reactions rather than freedom and proactivity.

Our form feels things, perceives things this way or that way, liking or not liking. Then actions or intentions push or pull, trying to get more, get less, ignore it, or get away from it. Avoidance, denial, greed, demandingness, attachment, and so on, equals dissatisfaction and misery.

And fifth is consciousness, or as Buddhism says, consciousnesses: States of mind.

That's what we are, according to the enlightened perspective of Buddha. Has anybody found anything else that they think we are that is not included in those five? So where is the soul? Where is the ego, the id, and the super ego in that scheme? It's interesting. If you analyze, maybe you feel guilty or depressed, or maybe you feel victimized, or maybe you feel powerful -- which skandha does that fit in? You can then see that all of the skandhas, these heaps, these piles, are bunches of stuff themselves. Like a pile of sand, a whirling composite of forces. There's no fixed entity anywhere. The body changes all the time, right? Do we look the same way we looked five or ten or twenty years ago? Every seven years every cell in the body changes completely. Not to mention how our mind is changing all the time. And our feelings, sensations, and perceptions. So who or what are we? Who am I? Ask yourself that simple, utterly profound question. Who or what am I? Who is experiencing one's own experience, right now, this very moment? Feel it, sense it; don't just think and analyze. Who is present, in yourself, right now?!

So far so good.  This is what we are,  We are a plurality.  So how does the wretched man enter?  Our problem is with our emotions and becomes evident within the third skandha and called the six realms.

http://www.tibetanlama.com/buddhism/The_Six_Realms.asp

At some point we might hear about spirituality. We might hear about the possibility of meditation techniques, imported from some eastern religion, or mystical western one, that will make our minds peaceful and absorb us into a universal harmony. We begin to meditate and perform certain rituals and we find ourselves absorbed into infinite space and blissful states of existence. Everything sparkles with love and light; we become godlike beings. We become proud of our godlike powers of meditative absorption. We might even dwell in the realm of infinite space where thoughts seldom arise to bother us. We ignore everything that doesn't confirm our godhood. We have manufactured the god realm, the highest of the six realms of existence.

The problem is, that we have manufactured it. We begin to relax and no longer feel the need to maintain our exalted state. Eventually a small sliver of doubt occurs. Have we really made it? At first we are able to smooth over the question, but eventually the doubt begins to occur more and more frequently and soon we begin to struggle to regain our supreme confidence. As soon as we begin to struggle, we fall back into the lower realms and begin the whole process over and over; from god realm to jealous god realm to animal realm to hungry ghost realm to hell realm. At some point we begin to wonder if there isn't some sort of alternative to our habitual way of dealing with the world. This is the human realm.

The human realm is the only one in which liberation from the six states of existence is possible. The human realm is characterized by doubt and inquisitiveness and the longing for something better. We are not as absorbed by the all consuming preoccupations of the other states of being. We begin to wonder whether it is possible to relate to the world as simple, dignified human beings.

The author obviously experienced the distinction between la la land and man's potential.  He is also the wretched man.  He sees that he is not one but many.  His states change not only on the same level as in happy or sad but in relation to consciousness itself.

We can create fine definitions and beautiful platitudes but when we see that our lives are primarily lived through imagination from the limitations of the six realms as we move from one to the other and justify this hypocrisy by creating an ego capable of doing it.

Buddhism begins where Christianity begins for us which is as the wretched man right in the middle of Plato's cave.  Help for the emotions comes through the Holy Spirit for Christianity.  It is probably the same in Buddhism but not expressed as such.  Either way, Buddhism strives for freedom from imagination and creating the void that allows it to enter as we move towards inner unity.  The goal of Buddhism IMO isn't a politically correct automaton