Andrew, anyone, comments please?
-------------------------------------------------
By Richard Handler
In CBCNews
The writers of happiness books — the serious writers, that is — are churning out works based on some pretty solid research. There is even a name for this group: "Positive psychologists."
They are an upbeat bunch and I love them. They turn my brooding soul away from the pangs of intellectual melancholy and maintain a place in my heart as well as on my bookshelf.
What's more, in the great sport of the media interview, they deliver. They tend to be great performers: Martin Seligman, Dan Gilbert, Sonja Lyubomirsky, to name a few. So, too, in his own way, is the wise and giggly Dalai Lama, whose The Art of Happiness was a best seller. When he is on tour, His Holiness can fill stadiums.
But in this group there is no one more chipper than Jonathan Haidt, author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. I heard him on the CBC's Tapestry not long ago. He set my feet dancing, which was a good way to start the summer.
Haidt teaches at the University of Virginia where he researches happiness and instructs his undergraduates how to live a good life (according to the evidence). He also maintains a very friendly website.
But you know when a happiness guy is really good at what he does when he can criticize the Buddha in the nicest possible way and get away with it.
Pacifying the chaotic mind
That's what he did with host Mary Hynes on Tapestry: He corrected the Buddha. But like all good positive psychologists (and management consultants and PR specialists) he started with the good news, the most effective strategy.
At one time, Haidt believed Buddha was the best psychologist of the last 3,000 years. In that sense, he was not only the founder of Buddhism but of the entire field of positive psychology because the Buddha understood that people walk around with their heads "full of garbage."
These worries have plagued human beings probably forever. Haidt quotes Mark Twain who wistfully said: "My life has been filled with miseries and failures, most of which have never happened."
Now, you can argue that this state of mind is the psychological version of original sin. Thus, for Haidt, Buddhism is a brilliant system for clearing out the mind and achieving a certain peace.
Elephants within
To use the image Buddha liked, the mind is like an unruly elephant. It must be tamed. Hence the need for meditative practices and discipline.
But here's the bad news. Haidt believes Buddhism goes further than trying to pacify the chaotic mind. As a philosophy of life, it is based on "an overreaction, even an error," he says. To understand why, you have to understand the life of the Buddha.
The Buddha was born a prince in India around 624 B.C.E (dates vary). His father supposedly heard a prophecy that his son would abandon his regal ways and venture into the forest to become a sage or holy man. His father was not pleased.
So, like so many dads, he tried to protect his son by hiding the ugly realities of the world from him.
The Buddha's father did this by locking his son away in his sumptuous palace. There, the young prince lived a life full of ease and pleasure. The shadows of pain and suffering were barred from entry.
But the Buddha was curious. One day he convinced his father to let him take a tour outside the palace and observe the life of ordinary human beings. Ever protective, his father tried to sweep the old and the sick off the streets. But he was not completely successful. When his son caught sight of an old man, he saw the stark reality of the human condition.
A very human mistake
The Buddha was horrified. And he set out on a quest. "Why must people be attached to such a life?" he wondered. The Buddha was looking for an answer to this transitory and unsatisfactory existence we refer to as life.
His solution is what we now call Buddhism. In its view, attachment is the problem. Non-attachment is the answer, the state to be prized. And, according Jonathan Haidt, this is where the Buddha made his very human mistake.
Had the Buddha actually spoken to any of the suffering people he observed, says Haidt, he would have discovered they weren't nearly as unhappy as he thought they were.
The poor Buddha, it seems, was starting his ancient quest without the benefit of 21st century research.
Now, Haidt is speaking as an empiricist, a scientifically positive psychologist. He observes that when bad things happen to people they often adapt amazingly well. Not always. And not everybody. But according to the evidence, even people crippled by terrible accidents can return to their usual selves sooner than you would imagine.
As a psychologist, Haidt is always asking himself: What is our fundamental nature? What kind of creatures are we?
Just as a shark needs to swim so that water flows over its gills, we humans need goals, he says. When you ask people to renounce passion, renounce attachment, as the Buddha does, they can't do it.
Well, maybe a few can. But they are the exception and Haidt is interested in what the ordinary human being can accomplish.
That means a passionate engagement with life, not its deadpan opposite.
Building sandcastles
There is probably little argument that clinging to meaningless, harmless attachments can be dangerous to your psychological well-being. But the Buddhist would say that even clinging to important attachments is the wrong thing to do.
Let them go, a follower would say. Life is like those intricate sandcastles Tibetan monks love to build. Life is impermanent (a favorite Buddhist word). Build all the gorgeous sandcastles you want. They will all crumble in the end.
Perhaps Haidt makes Buddhist renunciation sound harsher than it is. The chipper Haidt never uses the word the Dalai Lama insists on using all the time: Compassion.
Renouncing the passions of life can sound cold-hearted and punitive unless it is done in the spirit of compassion. Without it, renunciation can become the stuff of hateful puritans and self-loathers.
Still, Haidt makes a good deal of sense to me. Passionate engagement is his magic phrase. His royal road is not just for the occasional saint who can perform spiritual gymnastics.
A path or religion that works for the few isn't a real path at all, it is a recipe for failure. As a Westerner, Haidt is a pragmatist. He is someone who is attached to what works.
Now, of course, being happy in life may depend on what you are attached to. Here is where the new psychological research supports much ancient wisdom. (This is also, Haidt says, why Westerners have trouble creating balanced lives.)
Haidt says humans seek "vital engagements" in three areas of our lives: In our person, in our work and in something larger than ourselves. The Buddhist asks you to disengage from the passions that fuel your work or your personal interests. But Haidt says, go on, take a flyer, engage more completely. That is the key to a vital life.
It is such good, simple advice that, if he could have heard it, the Buddha himself would have had a hard time not cracking a smile.
In CBCNews
The writers of happiness books — the serious writers, that is — are churning out works based on some pretty solid research. There is even a name for this group: "Positive psychologists."They are an upbeat bunch and I love them. They turn my brooding soul away from the pangs of intellectual melancholy and maintain a place in my heart as well as on my bookshelf.
What's more, in the great sport of the media interview, they deliver. They tend to be great performers: Martin Seligman, Dan Gilbert, Sonja Lyubomirsky, to name a few. So, too, in his own way, is the wise and giggly Dalai Lama, whose The Art of Happiness was a best seller. When he is on tour, His Holiness can fill stadiums.
But in this group there is no one more chipper than Jonathan Haidt, author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. I heard him on the CBC's Tapestry not long ago. He set my feet dancing, which was a good way to start the summer.
Haidt teaches at the University of Virginia where he researches happiness and instructs his undergraduates how to live a good life (according to the evidence). He also maintains a very friendly website.
But you know when a happiness guy is really good at what he does when he can criticize the Buddha in the nicest possible way and get away with it.
Pacifying the chaotic mind
That's what he did with host Mary Hynes on Tapestry: He corrected the Buddha. But like all good positive psychologists (and management consultants and PR specialists) he started with the good news, the most effective strategy.
At one time, Haidt believed Buddha was the best psychologist of the last 3,000 years. In that sense, he was not only the founder of Buddhism but of the entire field of positive psychology because the Buddha understood that people walk around with their heads "full of garbage."
These worries have plagued human beings probably forever. Haidt quotes Mark Twain who wistfully said: "My life has been filled with miseries and failures, most of which have never happened."
Now, you can argue that this state of mind is the psychological version of original sin. Thus, for Haidt, Buddhism is a brilliant system for clearing out the mind and achieving a certain peace.
Elephants within
To use the image Buddha liked, the mind is like an unruly elephant. It must be tamed. Hence the need for meditative practices and discipline.
But here's the bad news. Haidt believes Buddhism goes further than trying to pacify the chaotic mind. As a philosophy of life, it is based on "an overreaction, even an error," he says. To understand why, you have to understand the life of the Buddha.
The Buddha was born a prince in India around 624 B.C.E (dates vary). His father supposedly heard a prophecy that his son would abandon his regal ways and venture into the forest to become a sage or holy man. His father was not pleased.
So, like so many dads, he tried to protect his son by hiding the ugly realities of the world from him.
The Buddha's father did this by locking his son away in his sumptuous palace. There, the young prince lived a life full of ease and pleasure. The shadows of pain and suffering were barred from entry.
But the Buddha was curious. One day he convinced his father to let him take a tour outside the palace and observe the life of ordinary human beings. Ever protective, his father tried to sweep the old and the sick off the streets. But he was not completely successful. When his son caught sight of an old man, he saw the stark reality of the human condition.
A very human mistake
The Buddha was horrified. And he set out on a quest. "Why must people be attached to such a life?" he wondered. The Buddha was looking for an answer to this transitory and unsatisfactory existence we refer to as life.
His solution is what we now call Buddhism. In its view, attachment is the problem. Non-attachment is the answer, the state to be prized. And, according Jonathan Haidt, this is where the Buddha made his very human mistake.
Had the Buddha actually spoken to any of the suffering people he observed, says Haidt, he would have discovered they weren't nearly as unhappy as he thought they were.
The poor Buddha, it seems, was starting his ancient quest without the benefit of 21st century research.
Now, Haidt is speaking as an empiricist, a scientifically positive psychologist. He observes that when bad things happen to people they often adapt amazingly well. Not always. And not everybody. But according to the evidence, even people crippled by terrible accidents can return to their usual selves sooner than you would imagine.
As a psychologist, Haidt is always asking himself: What is our fundamental nature? What kind of creatures are we?
Just as a shark needs to swim so that water flows over its gills, we humans need goals, he says. When you ask people to renounce passion, renounce attachment, as the Buddha does, they can't do it.
Well, maybe a few can. But they are the exception and Haidt is interested in what the ordinary human being can accomplish.
That means a passionate engagement with life, not its deadpan opposite.
Building sandcastles
There is probably little argument that clinging to meaningless, harmless attachments can be dangerous to your psychological well-being. But the Buddhist would say that even clinging to important attachments is the wrong thing to do.
Let them go, a follower would say. Life is like those intricate sandcastles Tibetan monks love to build. Life is impermanent (a favorite Buddhist word). Build all the gorgeous sandcastles you want. They will all crumble in the end.
Perhaps Haidt makes Buddhist renunciation sound harsher than it is. The chipper Haidt never uses the word the Dalai Lama insists on using all the time: Compassion.
Renouncing the passions of life can sound cold-hearted and punitive unless it is done in the spirit of compassion. Without it, renunciation can become the stuff of hateful puritans and self-loathers.
Still, Haidt makes a good deal of sense to me. Passionate engagement is his magic phrase. His royal road is not just for the occasional saint who can perform spiritual gymnastics.
A path or religion that works for the few isn't a real path at all, it is a recipe for failure. As a Westerner, Haidt is a pragmatist. He is someone who is attached to what works.
Now, of course, being happy in life may depend on what you are attached to. Here is where the new psychological research supports much ancient wisdom. (This is also, Haidt says, why Westerners have trouble creating balanced lives.)
Haidt says humans seek "vital engagements" in three areas of our lives: In our person, in our work and in something larger than ourselves. The Buddhist asks you to disengage from the passions that fuel your work or your personal interests. But Haidt says, go on, take a flyer, engage more completely. That is the key to a vital life.
It is such good, simple advice that, if he could have heard it, the Buddha himself would have had a hard time not cracking a smile.
1 comment:
I think that the body has its own way of feeling good that should not be denied. Good music, dance, books, poetry, recreational pursuits, painting, sculpting. Should all these be denied. I don't think so. The body thrives on these activities.
When the Buddha said do not be detached to both good and evil, he had a larger perspective. Both good and evil deeds, the basis of duality are prevalent and happen everywhere. By not attaching ourselves to the result of these actions, we begin to grow internally to activate the inner bliss of true spirituality.
So my perspective is render to the body what the body needs - which the Indian sages say is a gross need but a need nevertheless. And render to the spiritual what the spiritual needs - which is non attachment so that inner bliss can be awakened.
The key issue is at what level of evolution are we at any given moment. We are both physical and spiritual beings. When our involvement is physical, then physical goodness and pleasure is required. The same for our spiritual needs.
Post a Comment