
Dalai Lama: Behind Our Anxiety, the Fear of Being Unneeded - applecore
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html
======
sjclemmy
It's odd, the world is the safest and most stable that it has ever been. There
has never been a better time to be a human being, and yet, the media and
certain politicians would have you believe that there is disaster after
disaster, terrorist plots afoot around every corner, feeding your fear day
after day. If ever there was an example of the devil at work, then that's
it(and I'm not even religious).

Uncertainty about the future has always been the same.

Don't listen to those devils.

~~~
shp0ngle
If you are rich and already in the top class, then maybe.

But it's not terribly good for the middle class.

~~~
burke
It may not be as good as it was 50 years ago, but there's a case to be made
that it's nearly as good as it ever was prior to 1900.

~~~
sjclemmy
It's better in every way. Racism, sexism, apartheid, LGBT, corporal
punishment...

~~~
18972345
If you genuinely think these are the best markers for improvement in society,
you must be an extremely lucky person. Having a job, having a job that doesn't
completely suck, having enough money to move out of your parents house at the
age of 30. These are things that people are facing today. In Australia, there
are lots of people that are still living with their parents into their 30s
because they simply can't afford rent or a mortgage.

Racism and sexism and other terms are used more for political purposes these
days then they are for anything of worth. Why didn't you mention the
discrimination people with autism face, for example? Autism simply isn't a
useful political tool because it doesn't get enough votes. Yet people with
autism face more discrimination then the types you have listed. It is politics
and nothing more.

~~~
warlox
You are obviously a white male. You have no credibility when it comes to
denying discrimination. You have never been in danger of being fired or
lynched for some intrinsic characteristic.

------
xherberta
Yes, the poorest among us are materially well-off, by any historical
comparison. Yet the article speaks to how we're doing psychologically and
spiritually. It's a little glib to tell people they'd better get happy and
appreciate how much better we have it than ye olde folks of yore.

Trump has gotten this far by stirring up rust belt fears of human
obsolescence. Less-educated white males are seeing their place in society
disappear. If you don't think "the rest of us" have to care about that, wait
and see the response as autonomous vehicles take out the trucking industry.

Even if Trump loses this time, the same underlying sentiments will produce
more Trump-y candidates in the future, unless something can be done to create
real change and ways for all sorts of people to be active and valued
participants in our society. It's important to recognize the pain and
suffering behind the fear of being unneeded.

Interesting questions abound:

If prescription anti-depressants worked, wouldn't Americans be the happiest
people ever?

We already know behavioral advertising changes one's perception of oneself --
does that shift affect well being?

What's the psychological cost of commodifying one's special moments as social
media posts?

How do we engage undocumented kids who feel sidelined by the lack of paths
toward rewarding careers?

How do our attitudes toward birth, death, and caring for the very young and
very old work against well-being?

Why do we measure economic health of our country without reference to the
distribution of ownership of capital? (We carefully measure the number of wage
slaves, but who's measuring the number of people who own productive
enterprises? Stocks are too far removed from "productivity" and shouldn't
count.)

~~~
petre
Oh no please not Trump again, he's got all the bad press in the Western World.
I read a Dalai Lama article to bust into Trump bad press yet again.

Someone's gotta build and repair those self driving trucks, ey? And it won't
be robots or software developers with a laptop, it's gonna be non educated
hard working males of all colors who are not afraid to get their hands dirty.

Otherwise your politicians are gonna orchestrate WW3 for all the non educated
males to participate, because the Pentagon's got all the latest and greatest
toys they spent trillions in taxpayer money on and they're dying to try them
out.

I hope that the self driving trucks part will work out well. But it's still
Silicon Valley vapour, until we've got better batteries and solar powered
charging stations in the desert, not to mention Alaska.

~~~
ohyoutravel
>>Someone's gotta build and repair those self driving trucks, ey? And it won't
be robots or software developers with a laptop, it's gonna be non educated
hard working males of all colors who are not afraid to get their hands dirty.

Presumably it will mostly be the people who currently repair the trucks
continuing to do so, which still creates the problem of what to do with the
former truck drivers replaced by autonomous drivers.

~~~
petre
Autonomous truck towers for instance. Because there's gonna be a lot of towing
until the autonomous trucks work out.

------
trynumber9
"In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age
men are completely outside the work"

I was taught that work is one of only two uses for a man. That other being a
good father. It must be wrong but it is an unshakable thought. I can't imagine
how I would hate myself if I couldn't provide. This fear, even though I have
no dependents, is far greater than my fear of being unneeded.

Maybe it's different for other people.

~~~
fernandotakai
> I can't imagine how I would hate myself if I couldn't provide. This fear,
> even though I have no dependents, is far greater than my fear of being
> unneeded.

it's one, if not the biggest, fear of my life. my wife is a college student
and a housewife (college is different in brazil, it's not fulltime like in the
us). not being able to provide would mean we would suffer a bit.

i have a recurrent dream where i go look at my bank account/savings and it's
zeroed, meaning i can't pay our bills. i always wake up really freaking
scared.

~~~
kilroy123
God that sounds horrible.

------
NTDF9
Anecdotally, I've been thinking about this. "Being needed" is can also be
looked at as "having a sense of purpose".

Today, the only "Sense of purpose" is wealth accumulation and debt reduction.
There is very little we can do with:

\- Family (marriages, divorces are way too high)..not permanent

\- Community (everyone lives in distant houses and neighbors change
frequently)..not permanent

\- Kids (nobody can afford one), parents (either divorced, separated or in an
old-age home)--not permanent

\- Friends (too little time to socialize, too much competition, competing with
the Joneses, too much changing locations, hard to make new ones)...not
permanent

There is very little satisfaction in fighting for the above because NO effort
to above leads to PERMANENT satisfaction (except maybe wealth). Therefore,
demotivating any real sense of purpose for anything besides digits on your
online accounts...which really isn't the same as "being needed".

~~~
xherberta
In my experience wealthy people != satisfied people.

Take heart! Plenty of marriages do endure. Community does exist. People can
and do find joy and meaning in raising kids on paltry incomes. Friendship is
possible!

Relationships can be more satisfying when you drop the expectation that your
efforts will be reciprocated. Giving can be its own reward.

------
dschiptsov
That's gross oversimplification for western amateur audiences. His Holiness is
trying to speak the language of common western consumer.

Behind our anxiety is ignorance. Period. Ignorance is described as a veil that
obscures the view of _what is_ from so-called primordial awareness or Atman,
if you wish - the aspect of the whole (Brahman) in us. (The Buddha explicitly
rejected the notion of Atman, but numerous later Indian (tantric) writers
messed everything up). It is like continuous day-dreaming. The meaning of
Awakening is literal awakening from this habitual delusional day-dreaming to
what is.

Most of our fears are due to misapprehension of reality, like classic
mistaking of a rope for a snake, and our attaching to (and hence the fear of
losing) that illusory my self, which is nothing, but an appearance to ignorant
and confused introspection.

This crude formulation is as old as Upanishads.

~~~
jessaustin
It isn't surprising that comfortable pop psychology is more welcome on the NYT
opinion pages than esoteric theology.

~~~
dschiptsov
There is no known contradiction of original Buddha's doctrine with modern
evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience. The modern notions of
Cognitive Dissonance, cognitive biases, framing effects and modern western
philosophy of mind only supports Buddha's views.

The only applicable critique is that original Buddhist doctrine is too general
and allows flexible interpretations, nevertheless lots of scholars would
maintain that Buddha's approach is one of the earliest attempts of systematic
study of the mind using an imperfect method of introspection (famous
Upanishadic _neti neti_ doctrine is, perhaps, the earliest known to us),
leaving validation of the insights to everyone who wished to follow the same
path.

Buddha's investigation into the nature of reality and mind, which obscures it,
is qualified for philosophy - precursor of modern sciences, not a religion
(there is literally nothing to be saved). Theology has been developed by
various competing sects hundreds of years later.

------
neves
I'd like to read everyday articles like these. We are drowned in hateful
speech. Would feel better reading something like it.

~~~
pcmaffey
medium.com

~~~
JBReefer
"Medium: Growth hacking your way into SF gentrification."

------
sekou
A question that comes to mind: What is the future of "meaningful work" If
technology is poised to render sustenance-based work obsolete? The utopian
idea is societies where education, arts and entertainment are what we consider
to be "work." It's something that's been talked about since the industrial
revolution, but assuming it's a multi-generational shift how do we set course
to ensure a sense of well being in the human species?

~~~
pmyjavec
This is such a good point!

I have a feeling industrial based societies will automate themselves out of
relevance. Because those who are bored will just find things for themselves to
do anyway. Crafts, cooking, gardening etc, stuff people did before the
industrial revolution.

In some ways it's the end of the treadmill and we'll be back at square one.

~~~
humanrebar
> In some ways it's the end of the treadmill and we'll be back at square one.

Well, there's something to be said about a peaceful, physically healthier,
longer lived, and better nourished humanity. Even if it all boils back down to
cooking, cleaning, maintaining the homestead, and taking care of the family in
the end.

------
orasis
This is the big missing piece with basic income: People need meaning in their
lives as much as they need money.

~~~
iza
Personally I do not feel my job adds meaning to my life. In fact it deprives
me of the time and energy to pursue the meaningful things I actually want to
do.

~~~
tempodox
I have a similar view (although protestant work ethics would probably
disagree), and while a basic income will not provide meaning (nor is it
supposed to), “primum edere deinde philosophari” is still true. Any pursuit of
meaning would be literally meaningless if we go hungry every day.

------
cossatot
It's an interesting source. Tibetan society pre-1940s (most recent Chinese
invasion) was incredibly feudal. The Dalai Lama was the top of the feudal
society, both monarch and high priest. I've spent a bit of time in Tibet, and
the Tibetans dearly love the current Dalai Lama. Now, maybe he's an exception
for reasons of being a leader in exile, and a general scholar and nice guy.

But I wonder, in most feudal societies, do the serfs feel needed by their
societies and their monarchs?

------
slimypickle
The comments in here remind me of this video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4)

Eric Schmidt takes the side a lot of people here take, which is "everything is
getting better", and Peter Thiel takes the other side, that things aren't
getting better.

I don't think things are getting better at all. You can easily just use your
own metrics and then come to the conclusion that everything is getting better.
The problem is, your metrics are bullshit so you are coming to the wrong
conclusion.

I have seen all kinds of metrics used in here like "don't have to hunt", "live
longer", "safer", "can watch netflix". I don't think any of these things have
to do with whether or not people's lives are getting better.

You can just take one of those metrics - "live longer", and see that in
itself, it can't measure "getting better", because you can live for 80 years
and have a terrible life, or have 60 years of an excellent life.

I think people in silicon valley are just completely clueless and are making
the wrong bet, which is why they never see things like Trump coming. Things
aren't getting better and people know it.

------
IllusoryReverb
I am not certain the author of the article has identified the true cause/root
of the problem. To me, the need to be needed is certainly important, but, I do
not think that that need is the true cause of the anxiety described in the
article. The way the western world has reacted to immigration and socio-
political landscape currently obtaining is not well explained by the need to
be needed as explained in the article.

To me, the need to be needed/fear of being unneeded takes a back seat to the
idea of 'other'. The otherness of the migrants, of the new persons, the lack
of 'connection' with them certinly is a better explanation than the feeling of
being superflous.

My view is that if we, as humanity in general, could only see each other first
as individuals and secondly as persons with intrinsic worth - basically treat
each other as we would a treasured member of our family, their troubles with
the same sense urgency with which we would treat our close friend, brother,
sister in the exact same circumstances, then the world would be a better place
for all.

But, it feels like this is naïve, not 'realistic' or 'practical' there is too
much standing in the way, at least thats what it looks like to me when I
attempt to do so. It gets overwhelming, emotionally anyway. To me, behind our
anxiety, as humans, is the fear of what would happen if we truly saw others as
though they were ourselves. Really and truly. I am not sure we can do so,
because we would realize just how fucked up the world was. I for one would
rather not, the shame, fear is too much. I would rather build a wall and tell
myself there is not much I can do, I do not have enough to help, I would be
disregarding my responsibilities. But I know the truth. I am just scared.

------
Kenji
_And although all the world’s major faiths teach love_

That's not what I see when I look into the holy books. Let's be frank here,
faith and religion are still _the_ tools to turn ordinary people into
genocidal maniacs.

~~~
komali2
I know what you mean (turning someone into a pillar of salt, killing infidels,
etc), but there's a stark difference between the "tenants" of a religion and
the single books that drive them. Hence why there's a million different
flavors of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc - they all take their given
"book" and interpret it differently.

If you generalize Jesus' teachings, they're hard to argue as immoral - be good
to your fellow man, abandon your earthly possessions, wash the feet of another
because he is your fellow, stuff like that.

Anyway my point is, a tool is just a tool to be used as you will. Religious
texts can be used to bring people together or start a war, obviously - just
look at the current shitstorm surrounding "radical islamic terrorism." There
are over a billion Muslims in the world, 99.99% of whom live peaceful lives -
and a small percentage are convinced to turn their religion into an ugly
justification for bloodshed. No religion is immune to this.

~~~
humanrebar
> If you generalize Jesus' teachings, they're hard to argue as immoral - be
> good to your fellow man, abandon your earthly possessions, wash the feet of
> another because he is your fellow, stuff like that.

Well, Jesus generalized his own teachings like this, quoting the scriptures of
_his_ time, in the gospel of Matthew:

> “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him,
> “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
> and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a
> second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two
> commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

If God doesn't exist or isn't a good God, then it's not hard to argue that
following Him could be immoral and teaching people to follow Him is surely
immoral. And that's speaking as a Christian.

Paul even wrote, "...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and
you are still in your sins.... If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we
are of all people most to be pitied."

> Anyway my point is, a tool is just a tool to be used as you will.

This point is well taken, though I would rephrase it. People take all sorts of
things and then change them to suit their purposes. Jesus himself railed
against this sort of thing, calling religious hypocrites "vipers" and
"whitewashed tombs".

> No religion is immune to this.

Well, certain religions are certainly against this sort of thing. I'd argue
that someone who has taken Jainism, say, and added violence, they've invented
a new religion and stolen (and corrupted) the word "Jainism". This sort of
thing has happened to Christianity for 2000 years. There's no copyright on the
word. Just like a hacker can do whatever, say he's from Anonymous, and
everyone takes that assertion on face value.

------
MattyRad
This is a refreshing and useful article in light of the upcoming election and
political fallout. It's a reminder that the world, despite the media/politics,
is getting better and better, and consequently the need for human labor is
decreasing. The Dalai Lama doesn't offer any answers, only recognition of the
"problem" and hope that we can collectively find a solution.

It's especially important for us as the very people who are actively trying to
make human labor obsolete. As a generally libertarian minded person, I find
this is a very compelling article for compassion in a relentlessly utilitarian
society.

------
debt
to be fair though, if you're feeling severe anxiety you should go see a
doctor.

i've been seeing a lot of articles on hn lately that are like "just think your
way into a good mood yay" or "heres arbitrary reason for how you feel etc"
when we all know there's many environmental or genetic factors that play into
how our minds develop.

maybe it's the fear of the being unneeded or maybe if you have anxiety you
should talk to someone or it's likely both.

~~~
wozer
"Severe anxiety" was probably not the best choice of words.

I believe from a Buddhist perspective, anxiety is a pretty basic thing, i.e.
it is considered the normal state of the not-yet-enlightened person.

------
habosa
There is a lot of discussion on HN (in this thread and in many others) about
what we will do when technology replaces a significant fraction of our jobs.
People are talking about a 10%, 50%, or even 99% reduction in the workforce
size due to technological advances (mostly AI).

I totally reject the conclusion that the workforce will be significantly
reduced by any imminent technology. Look at humans throughout history. We have
continuously invented ways to automate (or nearly automate) away the labor
behind our needs and desires, but people have been working 40+ hour weeks
since the industrial revolution. It seems that our wants and needs advance as
quickly, or even more quickly, than our ability to meet them with technology.

I think a good analogy (for this crowd) is personal computing. Every year our
computers get much faster, yet the overall "speed" of the experience remains
about the same. Why? Because as soon as we get our hands on a new CPU we go
and write a program that requires more CPU power, rather than simply watching
our old programs run faster. I don't think there is anyone out there running
Netscape on Windows XP on top of a brand new Intel Processor with 32GB of RAM.

I think we are being a combination of overconfident and unimaginative when we
think we are on the brink of a technological utopia where DeepMind AI does our
job for us. We are unable to imagine the wants we will have in the future.
This is by definition, if we could imagine them we'd have already started
working towards them!

I will present a concrete example, one that's overused but still effective.
Consider the smartphone. This is a device that is pocketable, affordable to
~50% of the world's population, and can answer nearly any factual query in
seconds. I think if you had told someone in the 90s about that they would
assume we'd have vastly more leisure time. We'd have fired all the librarians,
replaced the teachers with machines, and our children could complete 12 years
of education at home in a fraction of the time. But of course this is not what
happened. In fact we created __more __work for ourselves, I bet half the
people in this thread are employed by a company that makes software for
smartphones. We didn 't know we'd want 100 apps and games on each phone, but
now that we're here we won't easily give them up.

I don't mean any of the above to sound negative. This is a wonderful thing!
This infinite cycle of desire is what has driven us to this point and is what
will drive us into the future. But the one negative consequence (in my
opinion) is that humans will not soon be a leisurely species. We will keep
busy, and we will keep inventing things to busy ourselves with.

~~~
Pamar
_I totally reject the conclusion that the workforce will be significantly
reduced by any imminent technology._

Your main point is correct, but take in account this, too: So far technology
has replaced or created new jobs _requiring not much more in terms of skills_.
To make a very simple example: cars were not extremely more difficult to drive
than a cart. And way easier (less physical strength required, for example)
than riding a horse.

So if someone was intellectually capable of learning to drive a cart, they
could probably manage a truck. People leaving their farm (thanks to increased
mechanization of farm labor) could move to the city and work in a plant or in
a blue collar job with little training.

Of course, advances in science and technology also created whole new jobs that
required a lot of study (I dunno... Engineer, Chemist) but it was not like
everyone who was made redundant as a cart driver or a farmer would move to the
nearest city and become a scientist.

So the problem seems to be this: assume that half of the truckers will be made
redundant in 10 years. How many of them will succesfully "pivot" in something
else, like truck AI programmer? 1 in 1000? Of course, they could become ...
truck mechanics... but, wait... we already had mechanics working on human-
driven trucks, and the fact that some trucks are now autonomous will not
require an large amount of extra repair shops to cater for them. So, what will
the not-truck-driver-anymore guys do?

~~~
mncharity
Also another factor - the minimum viable skill level rises.

In Spain, some years back (6 centuries?), being able to read and write, could
get you respect and lifetime employment. Being able to read silently -
reputation and awe. Without your lips moving - quiet speculation about deals
with the Devil.

Now being able to read gets little Casey to middle school.

It's not hard to image a few years out, a little Casey with more category
theory than almost anyone here, and a better feel for system decomposition and
design. Also with more numerate physics than most current physics 4th-year
undergraduates, and a better understanding of biology than many current first-
tier medical school students. Low bars all.

I've seen two threads here today, saying things like 'that new Javascript
tooling is bafflingly complex' and 'they wrote something incomprehensible
about functors returning monoids'. Welcome to the future.

Maybe the future is like immigration - you often lose a generation - one that
works really hard, for little joy, so their kids can make it. Only the future
really doesn't need or want the work many have to offer. And with wealth and
education inequality, their kids may not have much of a chance either.

And for high-skill individuals feeling secure and smug, it's amazing what
we're starting to be able to do, combining machine learning with
human/software hybrid processes, to deskill professional work. ;)

------
carsongross
Any analysis of anxiety that does not distinguish between males and females is
going to be extremely hamstrung.

Each half of the species has very different socio-biological failure modes.

~~~
pc2g4d
Is anxiety a failure mode? Or is it somehow exactly what's needed to tell us
that something's missing?

~~~
carsongross
The distinct failure modes being the source of anxieties.

------
white-flame
These problems and anxieties stem from a belief that things are unfair. Be it
racial biases, economic disparity, or policing offensiveness, many of these
complaints boil down to this: In such a "modern" society, shouldn't we be
finally past these problems? Why does it look like they're getting worse?*

People contrast the problems they face against the positive strides they see
elsewhere, and it foments an us-vs-them mentality, projects a "f- you, got
mine" on the positives, and increases outlooks of entitlement.

This is a continually escalating and divisive cultural cancer that's erupting.
However, it has little to do with feeling "unneeded" (though obviously in the
lost jobs cases that's mixed in), but rather more of people feeling actively
antagonized. It's a mess.

(* answer: greater information flow and media that profits from outrage)

------
blueprint
Not necessarily. For most people, yes. But for those with eyes open the
anxiety and agony is that our solutions are needed but that we cannot
enlighten human societies. The best we seem to be able to do is either fund
activities on our own or find those who have kept themselves true enough to be
able to understand, recognize, correctly learn, and practice truths. But it's
difficult to find those who want to know, so while valuable, this way is quite
arduous and lonely. The Dalai Lama may talk about western psychology's
abandonment and bonding conditions, but he has not wanted to meet even me as I
know the one truth that he has not been able to realize even half of one of
Buddha's teachings.

------
humanrebar
It's odd to see this sort of philosophy/theology posted on here, but since the
subject was broached, from the article:

> Virtually all the world’s major religions teach that diligent work in the
> service of others is our highest nature and thus lies at the center of a
> happy life.

Actually, Ecclesiastes (great read for all philosophy geeks) is a long
discourse of happiness, the point of life, etc. Its final conclusion was:

> Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

The core of Judeo-Christian theology is the supremacy of God and trust that
following His instructions is the best way to live the best possible life. Of
course there is a lot of teaching about how to care for others, and there's a
lot of teaching against selfishness, but that is the result of following a
good God, not the point in itself.

Ecclesiastes actually brings up charity as wise, but falls far short of saying
it's the point of life. It points out that there's limits to human knowledge.
In my wording, help people, because that could be you tomorrow, but the person
you save from a fire today could drown tomorrow. You'd need to be able to see
the future to utterly help someone, and only God has that kind of foresight.
So if you trust that God exists and is good, you should obey His teachings.

> Indeed, what unites the two of us in friendship and collaboration is not
> shared politics or the same religion. It is something simpler: a shared
> belief in compassion, in human dignity, in the intrinsic usefulness of every
> person to contribute positively for a better and more meaningful world.

I'm eager to collaborate productively with everyone. But if you're interested
in being my friend, you need to understand where I come from. I value human
life because mankind was made in the image of God (imagao dei). My eagerness
to give human compassion, dignity, and usefulness another shot grows out of my
trust in God and his teachings that say to do just that. But I do that in
spite of the track record of humanity, not because I have faith in what humans
will do in the future. Who knows the future?

There's a bit of an "all religions are the same" meme out there, and it's
important to correct it, especially when respectable people repeat it.

------
justratsinacoat
Article is about modern human psychological well-being; comments are about how
materially satisfied modern (Western) humanity is, so what's the fucking
problem, gosh!? The best part is the latter doesn't actually discount the
former, it just trivializes its importance.

Oh HN, never change.

------
zappo2938
I Want You To Want Me [0]. Some of us just want to love and be loved.

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbw-
PVwBU9k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbw-PVwBU9k)

------
the8472
if you have paywall issues:
[https://archive.fo/yBrfC](https://archive.fo/yBrfC)

------
forgottenpass
For as prolific as he is, the Dalai Lama doesn't pop up on my radar much. But
here he is in the NY Times opinion pages sharing monism.

 _This speaks to a broader human truth: We all need to be needed._

There's an old but relevant perspective on life. We value ourselves by how
much we can contribute to the lives of others.

Still though, I'm left wondering, what combination of forces summed up to this
particular writing crossing my path?

 _Leaders need to recognize that a compassionate society must create a wealth
of opportunities for meaningful work_

Oh, there it is. A message about the importance interpersonal relationships to
self worth is co-opted and reduced to nothing more than calling on the
government to make sure everyone is feeding their 40 hours into the system.

~~~
komali2
I don't understand how "meaningful work," when the Dalai Lama says it, means
"40 hours into the system." My understanding of Buddhism is "meaningful work"
or "meaning" can be slaving away 60 hours a week at your own company, sitting
on concrete tinkering away at a motorcycle, or even living on a mountain
shaving your head and relinquishing all possessions. The idea is to "find
meaning," that is, only do things that for _you_ are important and for _you_
give you a sense of purpose.

~~~
mping
This is a common misconception in my line of understanding of Buddhism. From
how I see it, there's not even a "me" or "you", maybe there's a "I am you; you
are me", or "nothing at all", depending on the line you may follow.

For me, Buddhism teaches about selflessness, not stuff like carpe diem or find
meaning of live or whatever; also teaches about the dangers of dying and being
reborn/transmigrate in a much worse state, so we should quickly get out of
this cycle of suffering. If you are sharp (in terms of Budddhism) you will
want to fix this ASAP. If you are not so sharp, they will have to use
expedients to slowly show you whats the proper path to happiness - for example
showing that clinging to stuff doesn't bring lasting happiness.

Getting out ot our own ignorance requires real effort, not just reading and
making assumptions from the comfort of our views.

