Laughter

[LilyM]

Saying ‘it’s funny because it’s true’ is a very different thing from saying ‘if it’s true it must be funny’.

I mean 2+2=4 is true, but is it funny? No way, no how.

I do get what you’re saying about using humour as a vehicle for teaching - and it certainly can be, but it’s only one of several. Drama, for example, is a very effective alternative in terms of illustrating points one may wish to make, and there’s certainly more than enough of THAT in the Bible! So I don’t think the Bible is lacking in anything as an impactful teaching vehicle.

Another point - any good mathematics textbooks will simply teach you that 2+2=4, because truth is worthwhile in and of itself, and you’ll remember that 2+2=4 without the fancy gimmicks. Why? Because it’s an important thing to know. If you don’t learn it you won’t be able to add or substract correctly, which is a vital skill.

Neither will an anatomy textbook gimmick-ise itself with cartoons or jokes. Why? Because to a medical student anatomy is knowledge that just might heal someone or even save someone’s life - so it’s of intrinsic interest, and doesn’t need to be taught via the vehicle of humour, or indeed drama or any other similar ‘technique’.

So I’d say there are some truths that basically sell themselves, at least to those with a serious interest, and don’t necessarily need extraneous teaching techniques.

 

[Soulewolf]

Saying ‘it’s funny because it’s true’ is a very different thing from saying ‘if it’s true it must be funny’.

I mean 2+2=4 is true, but is it funny? No way, no how.

I do get what you’re saying about using humour as a vehicle for teaching - and it certainly can be, but it’s only one of several. Drama, for example, is a very effective alternative in terms of illustrating points one may wish to make, and there’s certainly more than enough of THAT in the Bible! So I don’t think the Bible is lacking in anything as an impactful teaching vehicle.

Another point - any good mathematics textbooks will simply teach you that 2+2=4, because truth is worthwhile in and of itself, and you’ll remember that 2+2=4 without the fancy gimmicks. Why? Because it’s an important thing to know. If you don’t learn it you won’t be able to add or substract correctly, which is a vital skill.

To quote G.L.A.D.O.S. (a crazy conscious supercomputer from Portal, a game which is described by gamers to be slightly less awesome than Jesus): “you think you’re doing damage? you arent doing anything… Two plus two is… TEN… IN BASE 4! I"M FINE!”

Math can be funny too!

Neither will an anatomy textbook gimmick-ise itself with cartoons or jokes. Why? Because to a medical student anatomy is knowledge that just might heal someone or even save someone’s life - so it’s of intrinsic interest, and doesn’t need to be taught via the vehicle of humour, or indeed drama or any other similar ‘technique’.

Funny you should say that. My psychology text book is filled with little psychology related comic strips… come to think of it, so is my math book, communications book, and sociology book. thats 4/4 this semester.

So I’d say there are some truths that basically sell themselves, at least to those with a serious interest, and don’t necessarily need extraneous teaching techniques.

Truth sells itself in general. But laughter when it comes to these things make sure you dont take yourself too seriously. How many Buddhist crusades do you know about?

A shaman i once knew told me and a few other men a story of how he was an honored guest at some rich people shindig or another. When it was his time to speak he told them he wanted to show them a dance from his people. So he got up on stage and proceded to do “The squirrel dance” which entails shaking his butt around while singing the lyrics “i’m a little squirrel, shake my bushy tail… shake my bushy tail…”

After the story he said “sometimes you gotta make a fool out of yourself just so you know not to take yourself too seriously”

 

[ManOnFire]

yes

i like to get along with people with all different paradigms of thought. To me all of them are special an hold truth in them. Then i try to apply their truth to my life to better understand the universe we live in.

i dont have one that can be described in terms we have. Completionist comes close. that is all religions have truth in them. The faults are more in interpretation than actual scriptures imho.

The closest i feel that comes to truth are shamanism and buddhism. Shamanism because its nature is such that it is based around personal experience (which is the point of such things as vision quests and sweat lodges).That is you go out and find God vs the more Abrahamic (wink) religions in which there is a more static objective truth. Though the funny thing about these experiances is that they are all described in very much the same way after one “meets” God, which me an a few others on this forum can vouch for.

And buddhism because it too is about the follower finding truth through otherwise paradoxical koans, meditation, and knowledge of the self. Buddhism teaches that you are God in your innermost being, and that god can be defined as the innermost essence or fabric in the metaphysical sphere that allows things (as essence) to exist. That is God is the creator, just in a different sense than abrahamic religions.

The word Namaste is a favorite of mine. It is a salutation meaning "the light (divine) inside me welcomes and honors the light inside you.

I find a lot of truth in the ideas of those who follow the Indigo Movement as well.
if the meaning of the parable was to be funny as well as bring further insight into the nature of our universe, then that 99.5% would not be a problem. Wedding vows are not meant to be funny (at least most of them arent), but if they were, there would be no problem in laughing.

Actually many people take it seriously. Which is an oxymoron because discordianism is about Not taking life serriously, an learning to find an obscure order in the chaos that is Aeris.

Though if you think thats funny, you should check out the church of the subgenius. Especially X-Day.

I dont believe they define themselves. Labels are just labels.

i dont believe the strength of the humor is important. all thats really needed is the knowledge that such stories exist and are an intricate part of some spiritual paradigms.

Science is actually pushing more towards much of what shamanism is about. As well as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and all the others. I believe that one of the greatest steps towards world peace will be when spirituality and science start acting as one instead of bashing heads all the time.

though i wouldn’t call myself shamanistic.

Thanks for your awesome post. Most other religions such as Buddhism, shamanism, etc. focus on finding truth through “self.” Self vs. others is the primary distinction. The desire for “self” gratification is left over from our childhood. Catholicism is like a wild roller coaster ride: they expect you to have a loving, deep childhood, then some day turn around 180 degrees and hand that life over to spouse and kids. Your other religions seem to be focussed on “if ALL are successful at pleasing the self, then we will collectively achieve peace.” But there’s no fear of God to achieve that collective peace.

 

[colmcille1]

To quote G.L.A.D.O.S. (a crazy conscious supercomputer from Portal, a game which is described by gamers to be slightly less awesome than Jesus): “you think you’re doing damage? you arent doing anything… Two plus two is… TEN… IN BASE 4! I"M FINE!”
Math can be funny too!
Funny you should say that. My psychology text book is filled with little psychology related comic strips… come to think of it, so is my math book, communications book, and sociology book. thats 4/4 this semester.
Truth sells itself in general. But laughter when it comes to these things make sure you dont take yourself too seriously. How many Buddhist crusades do you know about?
A shaman i once knew told me and a few other men a story of how he was an honored guest at some rich people shindig or another. When it was his time to speak he told them he wanted to show them a dance from his people. So he got up on stage and proceded to do “The squirrel dance” which entails shaking his butt around while singing the lyrics “i’m a little squirrel, shake my bushy tail… shake my bushy tail…”
After the story he said “sometimes you gotta make a fool out of yourself just so you know not to take yourself too seriously”

Hi Soulewolf,
I seem to detect something in your argument which I, for want of a better phrase, have come to call the “tyranny of fun”. Please let me explain.
Several years ago, I had a career as a comedy scriptwriter. It was hard work (the famous ‘comedy is serious business’ comes to mind) but I enjoyed it.
However my own spiritual search ensured that my career would peter out. And I was fine with that. I still retain a healthy sense of humour but I am very philosophical about the “business” of jokes and humour.
In the midst of my comic’s career, I observed how fine the line could be between laughter and anger. Without some frame of reference, I wandered into taboo areas where insult was guaranteed. My view now is that such is the general sophistication of a listening and viewing public that the demand for all things to be held up to comic scrutiny was well nigh insatiable. And so I coined my own term: tyranny of fun.
The over-riding problem with this is that it is neither fully tyrannical and it certainly is not fun. I mean fun as applicable to the *process * of this humourous alchemy and not necessarily to the end-product of said alchemy. But we are all thinking spiritual beings and we must allow growing space, as it were, to our spirit. And the spirit deals with our inner and outer journey with all it’s obstacles. And since life throws up totally serious dilemmas constantly, the role of laughter must then be seen in it’s true perspective.
In such a problematic light, solemn prayer and reflection go beyond the reach of laughter.
Laughter has a definite place but has not the stamina of prayer.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[fons_vitae]

To quote G.L.A.D.O.S. (a crazy conscious supercomputer from Portal, a game which is described by gamers to be slightly less awesome than Jesus): “you think you’re doing damage? you arent doing anything… Two plus two is… TEN… IN BASE 4! I"M FINE!”

Using Valve’s Portal to argue your philosophical point? I call troll.

How many Buddhist crusades do you know about?

Come on, Buddhists are quite bloodthirsty too when they get a mind to it.
Heck, even I’ve heard that old canard before.
sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

 

[Soulewolf]

Using Valve’s Portal to argue your philosophical point? I call troll.

Just because i play games, and a portal dialog is pertinant to our conversation does not make me a troll. in fact i believe stating that i am is a straw man logical fallacy.

Come on, Buddhists are quite bloodthirsty too when they get a mind to it.
Heck, even I’ve heard that old canard before.
sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

Did you read this article? it doesn’t support your standpoint at all… it is quite apparent that this writer does not “get” buddhism. shrugs

 

[Soulewolf]

Thanks for your awesome post. Most other religions such as Buddhism, shamanism, etc. focus on finding truth through “self.” Self vs. others is the primary distinction. The desire for “self” gratification is left over from our childhood. Catholicism is like a wild roller coaster ride: they expect you to have a loving, deep childhood, then some day turn around 180 degrees and hand that life over to spouse and kids. Your other religions seem to be focussed on “if ALL are successful at pleasing the self, then we will collectively achieve peace.” But there’s no fear of God to achieve that collective peace.

i would disagree. God is the basis for bliss. of course they dont fear him. Buddhist psychology states that actions stem from two places. Love and Fear. They try to move from a paradigm of fear into a paradigm of love. That is they recognize the divine as Love and thus try to emulate him so to speak.

 

[Soulewolf]

Hi Soulewolf,
I seem to detect something in your argument which I, for want of a better phrase, have come to call the “tyranny of fun”. Please let me explain.
Several years ago, I had a career as a comedy scriptwriter. It was hard work (the famous ‘comedy is serious business’ comes to mind) but I enjoyed it.
However my own spiritual search ensured that my career would peter out. And I was fine with that. I still retain a healthy sense of humour but I am very philosophical about the “business” of jokes and humour.
In the midst of my comic’s career, I observed how fine the line could be between laughter and anger. Without some frame of reference, I wandered into taboo areas where insult was guaranteed. My view now is that such is the general sophistication of a listening and viewing public that the demand for all things to be held up to comic scrutiny was well nigh insatiable. And so I coined my own term: tyranny of fun.
The over-riding problem with this is that it is neither fully tyrannical and it certainly is not fun. I mean fun as applicable to the *process * of this humourous alchemy and not necessarily to the end-product of said alchemy. But we are all thinking spiritual beings and we must allow growing space, as it were, to our spirit. And the spirit deals with our inner and outer journey with all it’s obstacles. And since life throws up totally serious dilemmas constantly, the role of laughter must then be seen in it’s true perspective.
In such a problematic light, solemn prayer and reflection go beyond the reach of laughter.
Laughter has a definite place but has not the stamina of prayer.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I apologize. i do not understand how the tyranny of fun (clever by the way) is applicable. maybe you could go more into depth?

 

[fons_vitae]

Just because i play games, and a portal dialog is pertinant to our conversation does not make me a troll. in fact i believe stating that i am is a straw man logical fallacy.

Nah, it’d be a generic fallacy. Nice try, though.

Did you read this article? it doesn’t support your standpoint at all… it is quite apparent that this writer does not “get” buddhism. shrugs

The writer says that fundamentalist Buddhism is better than other fundamentalisms in regard to violence, but it nonetheless contains violence. You’re not actually a Buddhist, so it concerns you.

Oh well, I suppose that’s the advantage of having a religious system so complex that no human other than yourself can understand it.

 

[Soulewolf]

The writer says that fundamentalist Buddhism is better than other fundamentalisms in regard to violence, but it nonetheless contains violence. You’re not actually a Buddhist, so it concerns you.

Oh well, I suppose that’s the advantage of having a religious system so complex that no human other than yourself can understand it.

Lol. actually many people understand. Most people who do are either buddhist or shamanic. There are other free thinkers out there like myself that do not ascribe to either of those faiths (or both of them) that also understand it such as a few Catholics on this forum. shrugs

 

[fons_vitae]

Lol. actually many people understand. Most people who do are either buddhist or shamanic. There are other free thinkers out there like myself that do not ascribe to either of those faiths (or both of them) that also understand it such as a few Catholics on this forum. shrugs

Prayin’ for you, buddy/lady. Pray for me to your self.

 

[Soulewolf]

Prayin’ for you, buddy/lady. Pray for me to your self.

i dont understand… are you mocking me?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Laughter is most certainly not a sin. There are times when laughter can be inappropriate and perhaps sinful, but that entirely depends on the object and intention of the laughter. The same thing can be said of almost any other human activity (like running or singing). In and of itself, the activity of laughing is good.

Jesus laughed. And he certainly laughed from a good place.

 

[Soulewolf]

Jesus laughed. And he certainly laughed from a good place.

What kind of place would you say jesus laughed from? i’m intrigued!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

There is nothing wrong with clean jokes and even “Catholic” humor.

This emphasis on Buddhism and even Buddha laughing forgets he is usually shown laughing when he is depicted in his FAT persona.
In real life he was nothing like that.

Laughter releaees endorphins which are good for you. Did God create laughter just so Humankind could have another instance of sin? I don’t think so.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

What kind of place would you say jesus laughed from? i’m intrigued!

The place of God. Of being God’s son.
It says so in the Bible----“Jesus Laughed.”
The Perfect Being would not certainly do nothing “imperfect” since he was part of the Holy Trinity and came from God’s perfect essence. Therefore laughter must definitely be part of God’s perfection.

 

[Soulewolf]

There is nothing wrong with clean jokes and even “Catholic” humor.

This emphasis on Buddhism and even Buddha laughing forgets he is usually shown laughing when he is depicted in his FAT persona.
In real life he was nothing like that.

Laughter releaees endorphins which are good for you. Did God create laughter just so Humankind could have another instance of sin? I don’t think so.

er… the “Fat” buddha was know as the “laughing buddha”

“Budai (Chinese: 布袋; pinyin: bùdài), pronounced Hotei in Japanese, is a Chinese folkloric deity. His name means “Cloth Sack,” and comes from the bag that he carries. He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the Laughing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛). In English speaking countries, he is popularly known also as the Fat Buddha.”

The laughing Buddha and Siddhartha are two different people.
Siddhartha was the first Buddha, Budai was thought to be the second.
otherwise i agree with you.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

i dont understand… are you mocking me?

I THINK the poster is playing on the assumption that the word “Freethinker” is interpreted by many to be code for “Atheist.” Same as “Humanist.”

Therefore since you probably don’t believe in anything but yourself, then He/She wants you to pray for Him/Her so you could bestow “blessings” on Him/Her.

Since we are ALL Gods, right??? (Shades of New Age). I guess that is what He/She is driving at.

 

[Soulewolf]

I THINK the poster is playing on the assumption that the word “Freethinker” is interpreted by many to be code for “Atheist.” Same as “Humanist.”

Therefore since you probably don’t believe in anything but yourself, then He/She wants you to pray for Him/Her so you could bestow “blessings” on Him/Her.

Since we are ALL Gods, right??? (Shades of New Age). I guess that is what He/She is driving at.

ah then a misunderstanding then. No we are not all gods, but our essence and the essence of everything, stems from divinity. Everything is One.
I guess one could say that at our innermost nature we are divine. But that is far from saying that i am God.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

er… the “Fat” buddha was know as the “laughing buddha”

“Budai (Chinese: 布袋; pinyin: bùdài), pronounced Hotei in Japanese, is a Chinese folkloric deity. His name means “Cloth Sack,” and comes from the bag that he carries. He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the Laughing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛). In English speaking countries, he is popularly known also as the Fat Buddha.”

The laughing Buddha and Siddhartha are two different people.
Siddhartha was the first Buddha, Budai was thought to be the second.
otherwise i agree with you.

I actually did not know that!!! I DID know there were supposed to be several Buddhas before THE Buddha, but I did not know this…thanks for the information!

When a certain narrative is put in place regarding an individual, many things may be attached to the person which actually had nothing directly to do with with him. Hence a Chinese deity being confluenced with the Indian Buddha.

Believe it or not, there were also supposed to be several Zoroasters before THE Zoroaster.
He was the one who had the most “influence.”

The New Age background I came from used to place great emphasis on facts like these.

The main point still stands, I THINK. THE Buddha was a more serious fellow who emphasized contemplation and seriousness towards life. As far as I know, (correct me if I am wrong, you probably know more than me regarding this) there are no references to Siddharta laughing or enjoying himself in any of the scriptures regarding him.

Although there are writings known as THE LAUGHING SUTRAS, I do not think they concern Siddharta directly.

Again, thanks for the information! One really does learn something new every day!