> Another explanation is the country’s deeply felt Buddhist beliefs, especially that of reincarnation. If you know you’ll get another shot at life, you’re less likely to fear the end of this particular one.
This is a common oversimplification of reincarnation. I had the opportunity to study with a Buddhist scholar in India a year ago who corrected a lot of my misconceptions. Reincarnation is neither reward nor punishment. It's a long cycle with the end goal not being immortality but escape (or exit) from the cycle through moksha[1]. A possibly more accurate oversimplification is "do good, increase karma until you win the game, and stop being reincarnated."
If there's any link between belief or interaction with death and happiness, it's most likely due to simply increasing daily gratitude[2] which does have scientific benefit.
I'm headed to Bhutan in a month and will report back if I learn anything interesting on this topic.
Well that's one specific interpretation of Buddhism common to a few schools. Samsara (reincarnation) can also be interpreted as an illustration of the problem of not learning from experience.
A general way of ending the cycle (that works across different schools of Buddhism) is that the Buddha was trying to teach us to focus on understanding human suffering. And only by understanding suffering can we ultimately dislodge it and move forward. You don't even have to be Buddhist to believe in that!
I fail to see the irony. It seems entirely appropriate to me.
I'm admittedly no proper scholar of the subject, just a former armchair enthusiast, but when I read texts from the Pali canon it seems clear to me that from the earliest recorded times Buddhism has considered itself a living tradition. In the stories it tells, Gautama Buddha often refuses to weigh in on those sorts of matters. Fast forward a couple thousand years and you've got things like a letter in which a major Zen patriarch explicitly refuses to offer any opinion on a point of "theological" disagreement between Pure Land Buddhism and his own sect. And in between, plenty more stories of leaders encouraging flexible thinking on these kinds of matters. It's really not like Abrahamic religious traditions where there's this tendency toward obsessing over orthodoxy.
I don't understand what you're saying they got wrong. They're just saying that you'll be more content with a crappy life if you think you have another one coming up. You seem to be saying that the Buddhist belief in reincarnation includes the probability of another life coming up (unless you've managed to "win the game") which meshes with what you've quoted.
to being at my uncle's bedside as he passed away earlier this week. There was undeniable pain in watching him go, even though I barely knew the man - we were all still rather struck by watching someone breath their last breath.
But in the end (and yeah, it's anecdotal) I find I've been spending more time considering what I want the remainder of my life to be, if the end is randomly assigned to be sometime between moments after I submit this comment to say, 60 years from now. It's focused my thinking. I've been more forgiving, less likely to take offense, kinder to my wife, more in awe of my new kid. Politics bothers me less, and I'm less likely to get hot and bothered about the latest scandal.
It's been a bit cathartic, while being intensely scary. I'm not looking forward to leaving this life (see comment thread linked above) but having the idea be so in-my-face in the recent past has, in some way, made me more thankful and reflective on the life I do have right now.
My father passed away when I was 18, my mother passed away a year ago. Both from illnesses which no one had in my family.
As someone in his late twenties, it hit me hard. Even today, I cannot seem to enjoy anything since I feel the void of my parents, both of whom I was deeply attached to.
A friend who saw how broken I was gave me the book, "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tibetan_Book_of_Living_and.... It changed my perspective on death. It made me realize that nothing is permanent and it's best not to be afraid of death. A must read for anyone suffering from loss of their loved ones.
To live without the fear of death and to accept what happens, sets you free in many ways.
There's a great mental model called the Circle of Concern and the Circle of Influence. Happiness, according to this model, is about making the former circle only slightly smaller than the latter.
For some people, "focusing their thinking" means acknowledging their powerlessness and becoming unbothered by it, narrowing their scope to the things they can actually do something about. For them, politics was never useful, because they never believed they had any influence.
For others, such focus means pushing out their influence to encompass more things, so that their concerns are something they can do something about. For these people, politics is inevitable and necessary, because influence will naturally touch more and more lives and consequently, more and more politics.
Had a part about negative visualization where one would contemplate the negative aspects of life as much as the positive as a sort of counterbalance to hedonic adaptation. One would fall into a good life as being the norm and start to become overly negative about inconsequential aspects of it and hope for the next step up where the cycle would repeat. Instead, using this negative visualisation thing, one would contemplate how life would be without a paying job or a family or arms which I suppose leads to positive thoughts about having such things.
A bit misleading title, but Bhutan has its own share of problems. The Bhutanese refugee issue, a large scale eviction of Bhutanese citizens of Nepalese origin is a prime example of the Druk kingdom's shady regime.
"Large scale eviction of Bhutanese citizens" and "shady regime" are highly simplistic or one sided ways to describe a complex problem that Bhutan does indeed have. Over the course of the last 4 to 5 decades Bhutan has faced a wave of economic migration that it has been (and continues to be) ill-equipped to manage. In trying to do so, yes, unfortunately and almost certainly some Bhutanese citizens have suffered. At the same time, many claiming to be Bhutanese citizens certainly were not.
While, certainly not all those who claim to be the refugees might be actually one, the poor human rights record[1] of Bhutan speaks for itself. For a nation that issues citizenship based on race and origin [2] and "categorizes" them, a lot of economic development (and the self claimed Gross National Happiness) might be just a good publicity move by the Druk regime.
A very misleading title, yeah. This is what I clicked through hoping to read about, not a brief and vague summarization of the author's encounter with Bhutanese Buddhism.
That is basic buddhist thinking. However, there is much more than just meditating death in buddhism.
As we are talking about buddhist country it would be much wiser to look at what buddhists think (as almost the whole religion is about happiness) than just look at one tiny part and think that is the "thing" to be happy. It's just part of the buddhist "impermanence".
One interesting thing: Have you noted that Buddha is almost always laughing or smiling?
What a timely article! I was talking to my girlfriend about this yesterday and she became mad at me. What ticked her off was that I made a comment to the effect of, "Don't worry about <this problem>. Your parents will die soon anyway."
I soon realized why such a comment would make people unhappy.
From my perspective though, I see death (due to natural causes) as a happy necessity. I insisted that my position on death is that death is an absolute truth. It is going to happen sometime or the other. Let's live this journey of life as well as we can and make sure that we are prepared to handle death (of ourselves and loved ones).
Since I give death so much thought, I'm not shocked or traumatized by death when it actually happens (I've seen 8 deaths of close friends and family). I am also better prepared to deal with the inevitable emotional, legal and financial storm that this event might bring. After handling all these issues, I'm also able to respect and reflect on that persons life much better.
"Presumably, she thinks she’s got the right not to be chewed up by the dragon. How willful and presumptuous. The finitude of human life is a blessing for every individual, whether he knows it or not."
> Ritual provides a container for grief, and in Bhutan that container is large and communal. After someone dies, there’s a 49-day mourning period that involves elaborate, carefully orchestrated rituals. “It is better than any antidepressant,” Tshewang Dendup, a Bhutanese actor, told me. The Bhutanese might appear detached during this time. They are not. They are grieving through ritual.
That actually sounds like a great idea. It's basically like AA's 12 steps, but for learning to cope with someone dying in your family.
this resonates me! i think "happiness" is actually a relative, sliding-scale thing. if you've been comfortable and secure for a long time then i think you're actually going to find it hard to be happy, since a relatively high level of happiness has become your "normal" and you take it for granted. yet if you're going through struggles and grief a lot, it's much easier to feel happy about basic things.
like the article said, pain and suffering shouldn't be avoided but should be accepted as a normal part of life. and when you're going through it, it's heartening to look at your suffering as a down payment for greater joy and appreciation later on.
BBC Worldwide. Yes, that is correct, I've seen this block message before:
> "BBC Worldwide (International Site) We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee."
Apparently so... I've never encountered pages like that on the BBC site before though:
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes.
No it's to do with how the main BBC and the international BBC are funded. The BBC in the UK has to be non-commercial, it's funded by TV license, and BBC Worldwide is commercially funded, so showing BBC Worldwide content in the UK would probably contravene the BBC's charter.
One simply transitions from being to non-being. In a state of non-being one cannot worry, influence, toil, think, experience, or suffer.
I look at death very straightforwardly: it is irrelevant to me. I will never experience death. I will therefore, from my perspective, never die. My experiences are bounded by my being and non-being, and self-referentially we are each immortal within the bounds of our own experience.
I may one day experience the act of dying, but one does not know one is dying unless one is terminally ill. More often than not one simply either goes to sleep and does not wake, or one goes "gosh, what's that thing that's about to hit my head?".
Of course one might worry for those one leaves behind - but in most cases, this does the living a disservice, as to think one essential in the life of another is egoistic at best, and controlling and damaging at worst.
Hare today, goon tomorrow, and the world will keep turning.
> Of course one might worry for those one leaves behind - but in most cases, this does the living a disservice, as to think one essential in the life of another is egoistic at best, and controlling and damaging at worst.
You are in a firefight. There are two sides to it, and you are on one of them. Your side comprises multiple people. You are shot in the head. The probability that the others on your side will also be shot has just increased.
Recognizing this is neither egoistic, controlling, or damaging.
It is not difficult to abstract this scenario to the entire world. What you do, and what is done to you, has consequences. These consequences do not evaporate upon your death, unless you are very purely solipsistic. You can choose to not care about these consequences, of course, but such apathy can fairly easily be framed as egoistic, controlling, or damaging.
I find this to be a very selfish view. There's nothing eogistic about thinking that you're important in the lives of others. Note that this is not the same as "essential." Yes, I'm sure my wife and daughter will survive and even thrive without me. And yet, I'm still terribly afraid of leaving my daughter to grow up without a father.
I mean, what's the difference between "It's OK if I die, my family will survive" and "It's OK if I run away with another woman and stop supporting my children, my family will survive"?
I also doubt your assertion that "more often than not" death comes quickly. Of the friends and loved ones I've had die, the vast majority went through a long decline first. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know who went quickly.
So, I totally understand how you have taken that from what I wrote, so please allow me to elaborate.
The difference between the scenarios you present is voluntary action. I'm absolutely not proposing that you should pop off and go for a Burton, and actively try to leave your nearest and dearest in the lurch - rather that people are resilient, and life goes on, and that we must believe in those we are closest to. I have life insurance to at least ensure the financial safety of my family should I cease to be.
I'm sorry for your experiences - most of my loved ones have met violent ends or have died of mercifully swift illnesses. Some have lingered, painfully, and wished for but could not have euthanasia.
Perhaps there's an argument for voluntary euthanasia being legal purely in the idea that it comforts the living with the knowledge that they need never suffer a slow death in the future.
The initial cause of the two scenarios is irrelevant to the consequences of the outcome. If it's bad to abandon your family then it's equally bad to die on them. And it's completely rational to be afraid of an event that has bad consequences.
If you just want to say that your loved ones will survive, that life goes on without you, and you shouldn't be overly concerned about how the world will get on after you die, that's reasonable. But I completely and utterly disagree with going from that to "Fearing death is utterly irrational." Fearing death because of the negative consequences it will have on people you care about is completely rational.
No, because the marginal utility of $10 is inadequate to me.
I didn't say that not wanting to die is irrational, but that fearing death abstractedly is. Not wanting to die is rational from an anthropocentric/evolutionary biology point of view, as continuing life increases the odds of genetic and memetic propagation. It isn't rational, however, as an external observer might see it. I suppose it depends on what the "goal" of human life is. If it is simply "to be", then it's a self-fulfilling goal and of null value in an objective argument.
So - what stops me is that same instinct for preserving the self and/or ones genes. It does not mean, however, that I have not accepted the fact that I will, one day, die, and the fact that it really doesn't matter. I won't be here to care.
The OP's net present value of future earnings is likely to be much bigger than $10, so why is it irrational for him to play Russian roulette for so little money?
We "know" this because it is what we observe every time we see someone die. We do not reliably observe anything else, and have no evidence to contradict it. It would be irrational to believe otherwise.
Nonexistence -- both in the sense of me not being here anymore, being forgotten, and everything connected to or similar to me disaapearing -- bothers me way more than dying. I'm also not too fond of the idea that the universe might wind down to nothing, with no future or memory of its past.
This used to bother me. I used to fear that all that is human would ultimately be lost and unknown to a cold and dispassionate universe.
It doesn't bother me any more, as my premise was wrong. I came to realise that the only way the universe can know us is through us - and that the best record of any moment is that perception of it lent there and then to those who lived through it - but ultimately the retrospective reminiscence of a gone past is but a pale shadow of the real, the here and now.
Cherish life, and strive for the future for its own sake - but never forget that what matters is here and now.
Come to think of it, I think what most fear is not death, but having never lived.
It's just a larger scale of leaving high-school (or leaving any significant period in your life behind). Things, people, problems from back then don't bother you anymore and you remember them only a little bit better than a novel you read, being out of context. Also you dive in nonexistence everyday when in deep sleep. And the universe winding down, well, like you said, its just an idea :-)
I quite liked the article until the part that talks about self-deception:
> If you know you’ll get another shot at life, you’re less likely to fear the end of this particular one.
This should not be the reason to value and enjoy life! This is no different than any other superstitious tradition that is put in place to comfort people who cannot face the reality: we get one and only one shot at this. Beyond that, whether you believe in reincarnation or in 72 virgins waiting in heaven, it is the same delusion.
When you die, your body disintegrates, and becomes food for insects, plants and bacteria, and so your body merely transformed into other lifeforms, then reincarnation can be considered literately true. Your consciousness, your mind, your nervous system, will not survive this transformation, but new conciousness, new minds and new nervous systems will form in its place.
If you take it many steps further, you can see how it connects to Carl Sagan's idea: "The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.".
Your life, your death is merely one part of the cosmos, transforming into another. One door closes, and many more doors open.
Not sure whether or not I'm allowed to plug stuff that I have no connection to, but you may be interested in this Kickstarter I stumbled across recently:
This is a common oversimplification of reincarnation. I had the opportunity to study with a Buddhist scholar in India a year ago who corrected a lot of my misconceptions. Reincarnation is neither reward nor punishment. It's a long cycle with the end goal not being immortality but escape (or exit) from the cycle through moksha[1]. A possibly more accurate oversimplification is "do good, increase karma until you win the game, and stop being reincarnated."
If there's any link between belief or interaction with death and happiness, it's most likely due to simply increasing daily gratitude[2] which does have scientific benefit.
I'm headed to Bhutan in a month and will report back if I learn anything interesting on this topic.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
[2] http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/giving-thanks-can-m...