Humour:

[jupiviv]

Much has been written about humour, and most of it seems to be about how beneficial it is to mankind, and how it is unique to humans. The delusion that laughter is something unique to us must be done away with first. All comedy is basically an attempt to negate the empirical world(space) by imitating it. Parallels to this can be found throughout the animal kingdom – the male and female of many bird species imitate each others' physical movements during courtship. Octopuses, during mating, change the colours of their bodies in synchrony, in a very beautiful display. When troops of monkeys fight, they often imitate each other's physical movements and even screams. Crows often drive out other birds from a tree by calling in a strange way that is altogether different from their normal crowing. The monks of Europe were right in thinking that laughter makes us look like monkeys, because laughter is essentially a positive emotional response to imitation. Comedians always have an ape-like disposition.

Satire and humour are two different aspects of comedy. The former makes small things appear big, while the latter makes big things appear small. In this way, humour is like love/romance, as it breaks down boundaries. Mockery makes us see just how bounded we are. Tragedy also does the same thing, but the perspective is different. The man who never smiles or laughs, is either the greatest genius, or the greatest criminal.

Humour is similar to philosophy and science. Philosophy breaks space and time down into small bits, in an attempt to understand them(science on the other hand deals only with space; art is the spatial correlate of religion/belief). Humour makes space and time appear small and insignificant. In this way, both are attempts to absorb the universe into oneself.

[Kelly Jones]

I don't know what you mean by humour. It doesn't sound like you mean "the comic". It seems to me that enlightenment is deeply comic, and a version of that is used by the worldly comedian when he juxtaposes imagination with actuality, causing a sort of shock.

[jupiviv]

It seems to me that enlightenment is deeply comic

Deeply comic only when in the shallow stages. Ccomedy can very easily turn to tragedy(and vice versa), so enlightenment can be both tragic and comic.

[Blair]

Humour is a chemical response to the seemingly paradoxical.

[Kelly Jones]

Hey Jupiviv. It's not perfection, but the comic is definitely not a shallow stage. As I see it, the comic comes long after knowing the folly of holding to conceptions of God. After a long period of increasingly less mental movement, practising holding to the truth without doubt, the mind slowly grows to be at ease and more restful in wisdom. Then the experience of Nature really starts to glow, and the comic appears, where Nature is reflecting Nature with a smiling, very pure lightness. Of course, it isn't perfection, but it's a strong form of wisdom. Hakuin's writings are over-flowing with it, like in the "Embossed Tea Kettle". (Great title, eh.)

[jupiviv]

Hey Jupiviv. It's not perfection, but the comic is definitely not a shallow stage.

Let's call it the first stage, then. The relativity of everything is definitely laughable. But this is really only the tip of the iceberg. The realisation of the relativity of everything leads to the conclusion(if you're still thinking) that the former realisation is itself relative. So the humour sort of backfires. After that, you realise that everything is in fact absolute, and you start laughing at your previous folly. But if you think a bit more, you see that even that is wrong, because everything depends on everything else.

As I said, laughter is a way of removing obstacles from our paths, or pointing out obstacles in others' paths. But it's not always the best way to do so, especially if you know better.

Hakuin's writings are over-flowing with it

Hakuin definitely wrote in a very colourful way, but it was more to stimulate the minds of his students rather than his own mind. An absolutely humourless wise text that I'm reminded of is the Bhagvad Gita. The Gospel of Thomas on the other hand has a lot of humour in it.

[Dan Rowden]

Humour is a function of consciousness. The nature of it speaks to where we are, consciously. To have a sense of humour is to be deluded. Humour is itself a deluded reaction to things. How can things being what they naturally are, ever be funny?

Hahahahahahahahahah!!!! Cough cough.

Irony doesn't count, dammit.

[Pincho Paxton]

Humour originates as a form of defence. The baby laughs when it is shocked.. you pop your head up, it is first frightened, and then laughs. It is hard to kill a baby that is laughing if you are another human. This form of shock laughter is then kept because it may have saved our lives, and makes us feel safer. We like this feeling of safety. A lot of comics will tell you how it helped them avoid bullying at school.

[Steven Coyle]

I think Ryan Rudolph's only problem is that when watching football he turns the player's into mother's - instead of watching it like a chess game.

[Animus]

I tend to think laughter is derogatory. We rarely laugh at our own failures in earnest. We tend to laugh at someone else's imperfection and small-mindedness. It does seem that comics monopolize on juxtaposing imagination with reality, the best comics point out a common error we all make. I'm inclined to think that it relates to how we perceive ourselves in relation to the concepts being evoked. I predict that people who are rather small-minded find bodily humour appealing while more refined individuals wouldn't. Perhaps those refined individuals would find the small-minded to be humorous.

It was addressed already that babies find humour in something unrelated to conceptions of reality. It may be more apt to say that the baby's lack of object permanence accounts for the humour in it. But even if we look at small children, toddlers watching typical programming like teletubbies or sesame street. They are not humoured much by the rational content of the programming, it is the animated and absurd behaviour and characters that they find funny. So it may be at base, absurdity which we find humor in. This is bizarre considering we also find disgust in absurdity. So perhaps on occasion we would find humour in something with which we should feel disturbed. If you were talking to a friend and out of nowhere something bonked her in the head, you might let out a chuckle and realize she'd suffered a significant blow to the head that possibly could threaten her life, then it wouldn't be funny anymore.

[Kelly Jones]

Hey Jupiviv. It's not perfection, but the comic is definitely not a shallow stage.

Let's call it the first stage, then. The relativity of everything is definitely laughable. But this is really only the tip of the iceberg. The realisation of the relativity of everything leads to the conclusion(if you're still thinking) that the former realisation is itself relative. So the humour sort of backfires. After that, you realise that everything is in fact absolute, and you start laughing at your previous folly. But if you think a bit more, you see that even that is wrong, because everything depends on everything else.

That's included in the stage of working out the follies of holding onto conceptions of God. I was trying to convey the experience when those sorts of movements have become relatively rare. By lessening mental movement, I didn't mean that one stops thinking, just that those sorts of delusions aren't happening much at all. You know the saying about the fellow who had a thought and a mountain sprang up in his path. Or the saying about a log floating down the river, not touching either bank, and making its way out to the ocean. So those sorts of movements are rare by the time the comic arrives.

It's not about laughter, or actually smiling deprecatingly at oneself (or others), but about living consciously as God, in a wholly literal sense, with the kind of juxtaposition that creates between the actuality and the imagination.

As I said, laughter is a way of removing obstacles from our paths, or pointing out obstacles in others' paths. But it's not always the best way to do so, especially if you know better.

Yes, I agree with that. Humour has nothing to do with the comic, as we've been defining the terms.

Kelly: Hakuin's writings are over-flowing with it

Jupiviv: Hakuin definitely wrote in a very colourful way, but it was more to stimulate the minds of his students rather than his own mind. An absolutely humourless wise text that I'm reminded of is the Bhagvad Gita. The Gospel of Thomas on the other hand has a lot of humour in it.

Our wires aren't quite aligned. That is to say, I agree with everything you've written, but I was talking about something more advanced; I don't mean that in a deprecating way, as it's a good thread already. I'm not talking about humour, but the comic. I guess I shouldn't have posted in this thread, but the two are definitely linked, so there's no harm done. It's not the colourful, semi-playful sarcasm or the moody vitriol, of Hakuin, that I was referring to, but a lightness and ease that comes from living in deep connection with the source.

[jupiviv]

It's not the colourful, semi-playful sarcasm or the moody vitriol, of Hakuin, that I was referring to, but a lightness and ease that comes from living in deep connection with the source.

I see what you mean, but this lightness is still in the first stages, as it is a different state of mind rather than actual understanding. You talk about the ceasing of movements, but the mind has to work to keep those movements from happening.

[Ryan Rudolph]

There is nothing wrong with a little humour as long as its enlighened humour. Finding something humourous usually indicates ones values and what believes is acceptable behavior.

However, humour can be excessive and misguided if felt from irrational values.

Here's a joke. A drunk hedonist, an artist and a sage are all roaming a sandy beach near each other - the artist has been waiting hours for a sunset so he can paint it. The hedonist has been drinking all day. Just at the perfect moment before the sunset begins, the drunk hedonist jumps up, distracts the artist by jumping in front of him, and begins to laugh maliciously. Indignant, the artist jumps up and screams, "You have ruined my opportunity! You are a horrible person!" he looks at the sage, who seems deep in study from afar. "Sage, I want justice, you claim to be enlighened, tell this idiot how much of a fool he is!" The sage casually approaches holding something in his hand...Come, look at this guys - they approach. He is holding a mussell shell that has small snails all over it. Then the sage says, "this snail organism is interesting, it survives by feeding off of the feces of its mussell host. you know, sometimes parasitism can be beneficial for both the parasite and the host, as the parasite gets to feed his hunger, and the host benefits in some indirect way as well. For instance: Sometimes the host feeds off the biochemical effects of the parasite, or the presence of the parasite makes him more appealing sexually to females. The sage then walks away. Puzzled, the artist yells at the sage, "hey, where's my justice?" the sage looks back, "you were just given justice"...

[jupiviv]

Here's a joke from Zen Buddhism:

Student: What is the Buddha?
Master: The one in the hall.
Student: But that one is only an image, a lump of clay.
Master: That is so.
Student: So what is the Buddha?
Master: The one in the hall.

[Steven Coyle]

Off the top of the doooome.

[Tor_Hershman]

A parody song, "The Little Bummer Boy."
http://www.soundlift.com/band/music.php?song_id=82930