mindfulness

Are our quest for for pleasures i vain? Is fame in vain? Is likes and selfies in vain? Mattieu Ricard, the Buddhist monk born in France, quotes an ancient Tibetan master; Drinking, dancing, singing, and the pleasures of the flesh never fully satisfy.  First, those pleasures do not satisfy both the body and mind. Second, they depend on external circumstances over which we never have complete control, and as such are not always immediately available whenever and wherever we want them. [...] On reflection, pleasures are the cause of great frustration and repeated suffering. [...] However, the happiness provided by the Dha rma is quite different. It permeates the body and mind at all times and in all circumstances. [...] No enemy and no event can take it away from us, and its benefits continue into our future lives. That is why it is an ultimate goal to achieve." Asanga, extract from gdams ngag rinpoche'i mdzod, compiled and edited by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye (

What is that? Is it really possible to combine existentialism with biology and Buddhism. David Barash, professor at the University of Washington, anyway tries it in his book "Buddhist biology: Ancient eastern wisdom meets modern western science". He means that the three subjects are comparable, though not the same. By combining them it will take away the fundamental parts in each of them. For example the worship of Buddha as a God. From existentialism he takes the example from the essay "The myth of Sisyphus" by  Albert Camus. Sisyphus is is condemned to forever push a boulder up a mountain. But when the boulder comes to the top it rolls down again. And Sisyphus has to start it all over again. It's an absurd task that Camus means is our destiny. To act without a meaning and a real goal. We will all die and there is no God or eternal truth to save us. Buddha had about the same view of life, at least if we are completely driven by our desires. If