[Buddha-l] Happiest countries in the world

[Jamie Hubbard]

[DPD Web] Shen Shi'an quoted:
> http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=12,3821,0,0,1,0 :
>
> "True Happiness" contrasts with worldly happiness. The first is truly
> lasting, while the latter always fleeting. When we pursue worldly
> happiness, they will at best come... only to pass in due time. Mountains
> of wealth cannot buy True Happiness. Fantastic sex is just a brief high.
> Fame is always at the mercy of blame. Sumptuous meals can only be taken
> so much... You get the idea. Because worldly happiness is conditioned,
> it fades away when its conditions fall away. Because True Happiness is
> unconditioned, it requires nothing in particular to sustain it - though
> we need to cultivate our spirituality by perfecting our compassion and
> wisdom to attain it once and for all....
>   
And this, of course is the problem (or rather, the bait-and-switch). 
After brilliantly declaring the impermanence of all things and the 
difficulties awaiting those that impossibly cling to the ever-changing 
world in which we live (difficulties which most sane people wouldn't 
actually have, since fretting over the transience of what is so 
obviously transient doesn't seem an affliction of most people I know), 
we get sold a bill of goods about a truly lasting, permanent happiness. 
. . oh wait, it is capitalized: "True Happiness." Unconditioned 
happiness that doesn't fade away and requires nothing to sustain it. . . 
except (and, after the bait, here comes the switcheroo) we have to: 
"cultivate our spirituality by perfecting our compassion and wisdom to 
attain it once and for all...."

(see some of the later messages in this thread that one way or the other 
also opined in favor of, eg, "happiness beyond circumstances,including 
circumstances involving body sensations"  from Jackhat1)
 
I've read a number of things over the years about "unconditioned," and I 
still don't get it-- other than the need to sneak some ultimate back 
into the tradition. Perhaps there is also some logical entailment that 
leads to it, but it seems silly to me.

Jamie