TRUE

aye nange aitbaar dua per na kar inhisaar,aye bewkuf himmate mardana chahiye

जिंदगी के पन्नों में बैठी 
किसी की यादे चिरागे रोशन करती थी 
कत्ल करती गुजरती उनकी उल्फत 
किताबे जिंदगी में खोती  जा रही हैं 

jindagi k panno me baithi
kisi k yade chirag roshan karti thi
katl karti gujarti unki ulfat
kitabe jindagi me khoti ja rahi hai

Dramatic Incident

It's quite interesting ,when someday it happens with you like you don't  predict.
I joined new project ,was waiting for work to do.
In the morning I was without any work So I started to do some R&D(very popular word used for work less developers) on my technology.
My beautiful PMO came and told I have been assigned work in particular team.
I went there and was relocated a seat with desktop.Architect gave me instruction and documents to start with.I read the documents and got to know the technology is entirely different.Was in shock.My old manager Came and told You are most welcome in the project.I got interacted with two Indian teammates(off course aged and mature).Although during talk with them I was in tension of new technology.
After lunch went to seat and decided to tell my PMO about this.I talked to her she told ok ,you will be joining the team with your expertise.
I came happily ,went to try SUSHI(a japani dish of terrible taste but very popular here) some how I ate the food.Came to my seat to collect my bag and laptop .My architect told you are assigned to different team so you can go.
I happily came to my seat with another sweet lady.Got to know I am going in testing team.I was shocked what the hell is going on?
Was seating with full of frustration.I was explained everything how to do and what to do.There was nothing left for me to think.I was thinking why I left the first team.It was good chance to learn the new thing.
After one hour I again went to my previous architect and told him to take me in.Somehow after argue he took me in.
I was little bit happy to prepare the technological stuffs and was collecting all the technology related stuffs from google(GOD for Software developers).
After one hour PMO came and told me why didn't you go to the particular team, they are waiting for you for three hours.I was in surprise because she was talking about some different team that was my technology related.
I rushed to this team frequently,but here i came to know there was no place for me.
I was standing in the kitchen motionless.Was thinking what is the day today?Have I started to drink?
what is happening here?
after 15 mins I saw people (the architect,The PMO and the testing teamlead and new team person are coming for me).
I was surprised and sophisticated,they came and shout are you Ajay?
I told yes.
then they asked ,you height not seems like 5'6".it is written in your profie that you are of this height and you look taller more than 6 feet.
I told I have mentioned the right height.Then suddenly on more person came,
he told sorry for the late. he is looking for new entry in the project.
All shouted oh my god...
Yes you all are right,he was another Ajay of the same height and technology people were looking at...
now the question arises what I was doing and what the link up the story was with me.
Off course I was the victim and in the last I was the culprit too.
Well actually i was standing on 6th floor rather than going to 9th floor.On 6th floor,It was different project and look the coincidence this project was also waiting for the Ajay.
i went to 9th floor and asked the PMO for my joining in the project.She checked my profile with her database and told,Mr Ajay you have to joine at Monday of next week.

Guys you can imagine the level of frustration I felt that time...

Altuism

The selfishness and swlf igo are two different things.And at the other hand the self confidence is  entirely different.People sometimes get confused about the perspective which sometimes represents a person's self igo towards its selfishness sometimes reffered as altuism.The world history has seen so many examples of this perspective.There comes not seldom a crisis in the life of men, of nations, and of worlds, when the old forms seem ready to decay, and the old rules of action have lost their binding force. The evils of existing systems obscure the blessings that attend them; and, where reform is needed, the cry is raised for subversion. The cause of such phenomena is not far to seek. "It used to appear to me," writes Count Tolstoi, in a significant passage, "it used to appear to me that the small number of cultivated, rich and idle men, of whom I was one, composed the whole of humanity, and that the millions and millions of other men who had lived and are still living were not in reality men at all." It is this spirit -- the spirit that sees the whole of humanity in the few, and throws into the background the millions and millions of other men -- it is this spirit that has aroused the antagonism of reformers, and made the decay of the old forms, the rupture of the old restrictions, the ideal of them and of their followers. When wealth and poverty meet each other face to face, the one the master and the other the dependent, the one exalted and the other debased, it is perhaps hardly matter for surprise that the dependent and debased and powerless faction, in envy of their opponents' supremacy, should demand, not simple reform, but absolute community and equality of wealth. That cry for communism [socialism or collectivism] is no new one in the history of mankind. Thousands of years ago it was heard and acted on; and, in the lapse of centuries, its reverberations have but swelled in volume. Again and again, the altruist has arisen in politics, has bidden us share with others the product of our toil, and has proclaimed the communistic dogma as the panacea for our social ills. So today, amid the buried hopes and buried projects of the past, the doctrine of communism still lives in the minds of men. Under stress of misfortune, or in dread of tyranny, it is still preached in modern times as Plato preached it in the world of the Greeks.Yet it is indeed doubtful whether, in the history of mankind, a doctrine was ever taught more impracticable or more false to the principles it professes than this very doctrine of communism.2 In a world where self-interest is avowedly the ruling motive, it seeks to establish at once an all-reaching and all-controlling altruism.3 In a world where every man is pushing and fighting to outstrip his fellows, it would make him toil with like vigor for their common welfare. In a world where a man's activity is measured by the nearness of reward, it would hold up a prospective recompense as an equal stimulant to labor. "The more bitterly we feel," writes George Eliot, "the more bitterly we feel the folly, ignorance, neglect, or self-seeking of those who at different times have wielded power, the stronger is the obligation we lay on ourselves to beware lest we also, by a too hasty wresting of measures which seem to promise immediate relief, make a worse time of it for our own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for our children." In the future, when the remoteness of his reward shall have weakened the laborer's zeal, we shall be able to judge more fairly of the blessings that the communist offers. Instead of the present world, where some at least are well-to-do and happy, the communist holds before us a world where all alike are poor. For the activity, the push, the vigor of our modern life, his substitute is a life aimless and unbroken. And so we have to say to communists what George Eliot might have said: Be not blinded by the passions of the moment, but when you prate about your own wrongs and the sufferings of your offspring, take heed lest in the long run you make a worse time of it for your own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for your children.Little thought has been taken by these altruistic reformers for the application of the doctrines they uphold. To the question how one kind of labor can be measured against another, how the labor of the artisan4 can be measured against the labor of the artist,5 how the labor of the strong can be measured against the labor of the weak, the communists can give no answer. Absorbed, as they are, in the principle of equality, they have still forgotten the equality of work in the equality of pay; they have forgotten that reward, to be really equal, must be proportionate to effort; and they and all socialists have forgotten that we cannot make an arithmetic of human thought and feeling; and that for all our crude attempts to balance recompense against toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative severity of different kinds of toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative strain on different persons of the same kind of toil, yet not only will the ratio, dealing, as it does, with our subjective feelings, be a blundering one, but a system based upon it will involve inequalities greater, because more insidious, than those of the present system it would discard.Instances, indeed, are not wanting to substantiate the claim that communism, by unduly exalting our altruistic impulses, proceeds upon a false psychological basis. Yet if an instance is to be chosen, it would be hard to find one more suggestive than that afforded by the efforts of Robert Owen.6 The year 1824 saw the rise of Owen's little community of New Harmony, and the year of 1828 saw the community's final disruption. Individuals had appropriated to themselves the property designed for all; and even Owen, who had given to the enterprise his money and his life, was obliged to admit that men were not yet fitted for the communistic stage, and that the moment of transition from individualism to communism had not yet arrived. Men trained under the old system, with its eager rivalry, its selfish interests, could not quite yet enter into the spirit of self- renunciation that communism demands. And Owen, therefore, was led to put his trust in education as the great moulder of the minds of men. Through this agency, he hoped, the eager rivalry, the selfish interests, the sordid love of gain, might be lost in higher, purer, more disinterested ends; and, animated by that hope -- the hope that in the fullness of time another New Harmony, free from contention and the disappointments of the old one, might serve to immortalize his name-animated by that hope, Owen passed the last thirty years of his life; and with that hope still before his eyes he died.But years now have passed since Owen lived; the second New Harmony has not yet been seen; the so-called rational system of education has not yet transformed the impulses or the aims of men; and the communist of today, with a history of two thousand years of failure behind him, in the same pathetic confidence still looks for the realization of his dreams to the communism of the future.And yet, granting that communism were practicable, granting that Owen's hopes had some prospect of fulfillment, the doctrine still embodies evils that must make it forever inexpedient. The readers of Mr. Matthew Arnold's works must have noticed the emphasis with which he dwells on the instinct of expansion as a factor in human progress. It is the refutation alike of communism and socialism that they thwart the instinct of expansion; that they substitute for individual energy the energy of the government; that they substitute for human personality the blind, mechanical power of the State. The one system, as the other, marks the end of individualism. The one system, as the other, would make each man the image of his neighbor. The one system, as the other, would hold back the progressive, and, by uniformity of reward, gain uniformity of type.I can look forward to no blissful prospect for a race of men that, under the dominion of the State, at the cost of all freedom of action, at the cost, indeed, of their own true selves, shall enjoy, if one will, a fair abundance of the material blessings of life. Some Matthew Arnold of the future would inevitably say of them in phase like that applied to the Puritans of old: "They entered the prison of socialism and had the key turned upon their spirit there for hundreds of years." Into that prison of socialism, with broken enterprise and broken energy, as serfs under the mastery of the State, while human personality is preferred to unreasoning mechanism, mankind must hesitate to step. When they shall once have entered within it, when the key shall have been turned upon their spirit and have confined them in narrower straits than even Puritanism could have done, it will be left for them to find, in their blind obedience and passive submission, the recompense for the singleness of character, the foresight, and the energy, that they have left behind them.In almost every phase of life, this doctrine of political altruists is equally impracticable and pernicious. In its social results, it involves the substitution of the community in the family's present position. In its political aspects, it involves the absolute dominion of the State over the actions and property of its subjects. Thus, though claiming to be an exaltation of the so-called natural rights of liberty and equality, it is in reality their emphatic debasement. It teaches that thoughtless docility is a recompense for stunted enterprise. It magnifies material good at the cost of every rational endowment. It inculcates a self-denial that must result in dwarfing the individual to a mere instrument in the hands of the State for the benefit of his fellows. No such organization of society -- no organization that fails to take note of the fact that man must have scope for the exercise and development of his faculties -- no such organization of society can ever reach a permanent success. However beneficent its motives, the hypothesis with which it starts can never be realized. The aphorism of Emerson, "Churches have been built, not upon principles, but upon tropes," is as true in the field of politics as it is in the field of religion. In a like figurative spirit, the followers of communism have reared their edifice; and, looking back upon the finished structure, seeking to discern the base on which it rests, the critic finds, not principles, but tropes. The builders have appealed to a future that has no warrant in the past; and fixing their gaze upon the distant dreamland, captivated by the vision there beheld, entranced by its ideal effulgence, their eyes were blinded to the real conditions of the human problem they had set before them. Their enemies have not been slow to note such weakness and mistake; and perhaps it may serve to clear up misconceptions, perhaps it may serve to lessen cant and open the way for fresh and vigorous thought, if we shall once convince ourselves that altruism cannot be the rule of life; that its logical result is the dwarfing of the individual man; and that not by the death of human personality can we hope to banish the evils of our day, and to realize the ideal of all existence, a nobler or purer life.

Simplicity is honesty

A life of simplicity can be defined as a life that has removed all of the nonessentials. It is marked by oneness. It is uncomplicated. As a result, it is freeing. It allows our lives to be focused on the things that are most important to us.

Simplicity in life cannot be achieved without honesty. Honesty can live without simplicity, but simplicity cannot live without honesty. Consider the fact that every time we are not truthful, we create an alternate reality. And subsequently, we are forced to live a life in both worlds: the true one and the one we’ve created. On the other hand, when we choose honesty in all aspects of life including our marriage, our business, and our relationships, we live the same life wherever we are. Honesty leads to simplicity, but dishonesty leads to duplicity – the exact opposite.Consider the other benefits of a honest lifestyle:Closer friendships. Honesty and integrity pave the way for greater intimacy. Your friends love the “true you,” not the one you’ve artificially created.Higher quality friends. Honesty attracts honesty. People who are trustworthy and honest attract trustworthy and honest friends. And those are the best friends to have.Trust. Honest people are trusted by others.Confidence. Honest people trust themselves. Never underestimate the life-changing power of the ability to trust yourself.Wellness – Honesty has been linked to less colds, less fatigue, less depression, and less anxiety.Less stress – Dishonesty needs to be maintained. Pretending to be something you are not requires constant attention to detail, even for the most experienced. Honest people are better able to relax because they are just being themselves and naturally, feel better about themselves and less overwhelmed.

Unfortunately, early in our life we learn that dishonesty can have incredible short-term benefits. It can get us out of trouble. It can get us what we want. It can make it easier to please the people around us. And all of us develop the habit (albeit, to varying degrees.).

Living an honest life takes effort – especially at the beginning. It requires a decision to pursue it and some action steps to get it started. But once it begins to gain momentum in your life and you begin to realize its many benefits, honesty will become easier and easier.

To get started, consider some of these essential truths to living an honest life:

Character, integrity, and morality in your life make honesty easier. When you choose to live a life of character, you will soon realize that you have nothing to hide… and honesty is a much easier path if you don’t have anything to hide. There are countless aspects to this point that pertain to our spouses, our children, our bosses, and friends. Pursue integrity in all of them.
Consider the long-term consequences of a short-term gain. As I mentioned, one of the reasons that we begin living dishonestly in the first place is that the short-term gains seem obvious. Unfortunately, these short-term gains have long-term consequences. We would be wise to consider them and count the whole cost of our decisions.
Living an honest life on the outside requires you to live an honest life on the inside. If you are going to be completely honest with others, you’ve got to be completely honest with yourself. If we have hurts in our lives that we have been denying, we need to acknowledge them, admit them, and address them.
Sometimes, it’s the 2 and 3 letter words that can be the toughest. When the answer is yes, say “yes.” When the answer is no, say “no.” Be dependable. Follow through on your commitments. And don’t commit to anything that you don’t intend to complete.
Being honest is not the same as saying everything we think. Just because something is true does not mean that it has to be said. One of the tougher points of living an honest life is knowing when to avoid conflict, when to address conflict, and when to create conflict. Learn the difference. And learn from your mistakes on this one.
Use honesty to encourage, not criticize. Honesty is a powerful tool and like most tools, it can be used for good or evil. It can be used to build others up or it can be used to tear others down. While the tone of your words plays a huge role in determining the difference, your motivation plays an even bigger role. Use your words to genuinely build others up, not tear them down. The same truth spoken in a different way with a different motivation can have completely different results.
Honesty is not just the best policy for simplicity, it is the only policy. True simplicity is unattainable without it. And that’s the truth.

GOD AND LIFE

If there is one indisputable fact, it is that no one on this planet knows why we exist, or even if there is any reason why we exist. Despite centuries of reflection and 6 billion people alive today, the most fundamental fact of life is that no one can say why you, me, people, life, the earth, or the universe exist at all.
There are various theories - called religions - that billions of people accept without question. But for those who do question their existence, the fact is there are no solid answers.
So, the first question we need to ask is why does anything exist? Then, why do we exist, as we do? Anyone who can't answer these questions cannot tell you what you should do with your life, as these are the basis for all other decisions.While I admit that I don't know the answer to these primary questions, I will say that I have some theories. They are just that - theories. I don't claim that I know what God wants, or that God has spoken to me. I don't know if God exists, or if he, she or it speaks. I merely offer a theory for the big picture. You cannot prove or disprove it, but it offers a theory that can be tested. At some point in human knowledge, we will be able to test this theory.My theory - as discussed on this blog - is quite simple. The known universe is a limited place of time and space, a patch of existence that follows certain rules. Outside of this patch is an unknown existence. But in our universe, time, energy, and other parameters exist within fairly constant and well-defined limits.My suggestion is that this is purposeful. Time goes in one direction because that is how it was "set up". In my view, the universe was created, and the arbitrary aspects of time and space show us something about its purpose (assuming there is one).What purpose could a universe serve? Or, why would some being create a universe and time, if something did in fact create it? Why create a universe and not something else, if one could presumably do such a thing?My theory - which I go into in more detail on this blog - is that some being created this universe as a place for beings to evolve. Specifically, for the evolution of intelligent, conscious beings - such as ourselves. That would suggest that we, as the most evolved species on our planet, have a job to do. Part of that job is evolving further through various genetic and electronic techniques. Once we evolve to the next level, we will hopefully be more aware of the entire process and focused on evolving to the ultimate point, which is probably the goal of this whole set-up.In other words, our job is to evolve. We have been created to evolve - from single cell organism to higher organism to mammal to ape to tool user to conscious being to computer and Internet designer to whatever comes next. As we evolve, we learn more about the universe, ourselves, and the ultimate potential/goal of our race.If this theory is true, then sadly we are wasting a lot of time in non-evolutionary efforts. Wars, oppression, sports, collecting wealth, etc are all wastes of time and talent. What we should be doing - if my theory is correct - is spending our efforts on learning, acquiring knowledge, and advancing as a species. We are advancing, but very slowly, compared to what we could be doing.Well, that is my theory. It is plausible but impossible to prove, and I see nothing that disproves it. If true, then you and 99.99% of humanity is on the wrong track. If true, we will get there eventually, as mankind stumbles forward, but sadly so much suffering and wasted time will have happened. Anyway, good luck to you! No one can prove to you the existence of God, as in a mathematical proof. But you still will be able to be certain of His existence:There are many good, rational arguments. We will make them in a moment.But if you do not want to believe in God, you never will. There can be no scientific proof, simply because God is not physical or material, He is spiritual and infinite. Science is the observation of material phenomena in this universe, and then applying our reason and logic to understand and control them. By definition, God cannot exist as part of this universe, cannot be composed of matter, and cannot even exist in time. We will explain why later on this page.But even things in this world cannot really be proven with 100% certainty. Entire books have been written about how the U.S. space program has been faked by the government. All you have to do is set the standards of proof high enough, and absolutely nothing can be proven. Proof is a tricky subject. As the old Greeks like Euclid discovered, all proofs have to rely on at least several assumptions (which they called postulates) which cannot themselves be proven. So a person who demands hard proofs is doomed to failure.It is a doctrine of the Church that faith does not come to us through reason alone, but by the grace of God. If a person opposes even the possiblity of God's existence, then any arguments or evidence can be rationalized away.Since it is impossible to "prove" with absolute certainty, any amount of belief in God has to come from your own spirit, from within your own heart, because it is the spirit of God that we are trying to find. The paradox is, you will only find this faith if God gives you the grace to find it.
At some point, you may ask "Why do I exist?" No religion or philosophy that I know of answers this basic question in a logical fashion, or even states that the starting point for a discussion of the meaning of life should be based on observable phenomenon - facts. If we assume that we live in a rational, purposeful universe (and there is no evidence against this), then a rational being must ask what the purpose of the universe is. The only answer that I choose to accept is one that is in harmony with our current knowledge of science and the principles of the universe.
It seems to me that the answer to life's purpose is quite simple. It is my interpretation of the facts I am aware of that the universe was created for a specific purpose -- to sustain intelligence -- specifically, consciousness and self-awareness. I cannot imagine any reason for the universe to exist solely for the existence of non-living things - stars or rocks or minerals, or for non-sentient life - plants or fungus or squid. If someone created the universe, it took a remarkable amount of energy and intentional design. The only reasonable purpose I can suggest for creating a universe and, for that matter, for establishing space and time is to create a place for something - for intelligent, conscious beings to evolve. Not that the universe was created specifically for humans, but that it was created as an environment for some sort of self-aware, conscious beings to develop. It just happened to be us, through the open-ended process of evolution. It could have been a difference species.If true, then what is the purpose of having a universe that contains conscious beings? Many religions address this, but they rely on supernatural or irrational reasoning -- that we (humans) exist to receive God's love, or because of reincarnation, heaven, hell, spiritual preparation for a next level, etc. While I can't disprove any of these beliefs, I see no evidence to support any of them. Based on what we know - facts - I can only say that this universe appears to support conscious beings who must do something within the laws of space and time that we know now, other than just exist or blindly follow a set of rules for some future reward or punishment. It seems to me that the human race is learning -- slowly, painfully, over time -- right and wrong, and, eventually, wisdom. We learn this collective knowledge as a species the same way we learn as an individual - through reflection on, and avoidance of, pain and death, and appreciation of pleasure and beauty. Trial and error.If the trend of human knowledge and evolution continues, then men will (eventually) evolve into wiser beings who will someday be able to approach - even control - the next step in their evolution. I believe that we will soon start to alter our genetic machinery and create man-machine hybrids that we enable us to live much longer lives and learn much more in each lifetime. We will also be increasingly connected, plugged in to each other. Eventually, this will lead at some unknown future point into a state where we fuse - like the early cells that became multi- cellular organisms - into a singular, god-like consciousness. To some extent, we have already started a crude super-organism now, with the Internet and mass media, where we connect and experience the world through rapid connections. Each technological step speeds up the process of evolution, bringing us closer to the ultimate end.
If this fusion is the ultimate destination of human existence, it is not unreasonable to think that this was the design of the universe - to create a breeding ground for the development of super-conscious beings over billions of years. For some unknown reason, it seems that this type of consciousness must be learned "the hard way" -- through the experiences of free will and suffering - war, pain, famine, genocide. It is only through the essentially pointless suffering of billions of beings that our species will eventually "get it" and focus its attention on progress, rather than wasting time acquiring riches and power (usually at the expense of others) or just pursuing mindless pleasures. Or so I hope.But apparently time and human suffering are of little relevance to the "creators," whomever they may be, except that they teach us what is bad, what is to be rejected. To what purpose our distant descendants will serve - thousands of years from now - is something we cannot know, until we approach that frontier.This, then, is the purpose of life. The sooner we dedicate our energies to developing this future, the sooner we will arrive at this destination. Science, technology, genetics, life extension - all of these provide progress to the future world. In your daily life, you may already be supporting the human races' progress, through educating, policing, protecting, researching, healing. However, you may also be hindering human progress. All of our wasteful activities - wars, religion, materialism, mindless pleasures - only slow down human evolution and postpone the inevitable future.It seems desirable to speed up the process of progress. Just imagine if radios or computers had been invented 100 years earlier, or vaccines, or the internal combustion engine...unfortunately, throughout history there have been forces that have tried to slow human progress. In European history, many of the people trying to move knowledge forward were destroyed - burned as "witches" or "heretics" because they sought the truth. But ultimately, the truth has won out.Anyway, these are my view of things. I have started this "blog" about my views, which I called "Evolutionary Deism." I call it this because I believe in "god" (or some sort of creator or creators) and I believe that evolution is proof of this force, which has produced you and me over a 10 billion year process. I don't want to "convert" anyone or convince anyone to see things my way; I am only interested in discussing these ideas with people who share an openness to this point of view. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is true and supported by what I know about biology, physics, psychology, etc. If you agree, then let me know...
A person of faith already knows why they believe. It is not for any selfish reason, or because they want to be "saved." It is because they know they are a true child of God, and that we naturally seek Him and know Him as only a child can know their true parents. It is a completion of our lonely existence. It is a feeling of coming home. And it is a certainty that goes far beyond all efforts at "proof." Our faith is a pure gift from God. It is the result of our having accepted the gift of His grace.Still, there are some very persuasive arguments, and we will make them just after this:The following is a true personal account, and I remember it like it was only yesterday."I am sure there is a heaven, and that my Grandpa is there. Here’s why
What is the meaning of life? How can purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction in life be found? How can something of lasting significance be achieved? So many people have never stopped to consider these important questions. They look back years later and wonder why their relationships have fallen apart and why they feel so empty, even though they may have achieved what they set out to accomplish. An athlete who had reached the pinnacle of his sport was once asked what he wished someone would have told him when he first started playing his sport. He replied, “I wish that someone would have told me that when you reach the top, there's nothing there.” Many goals reveal their emptiness only after years have been wasted in their pursuit.
In our humanistic culture, people pursue many things, thinking that in them they will find meaning. Some of these pursuits include business success, wealth, good relationships, sex, entertainment, and doing good to others. People have testified that while they achieved their goals of wealth, relationships, and pleasure, there was still a deep void inside, a feeling of emptiness that nothing seemed to fill.The author of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes describes this feeling when he says, “Meaningless! Meaningless! ...Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless” . King Solomon, the writer of Ecclesiastes, had wealth beyond measure, wisdom beyond any man of his time or ours, hundreds of women, palaces and gardens that were the envy of kingdoms, the best food and wine, and every form of entertainment available. He said at one point that anything his heart wanted, he pursued. And yet he summed up “life under the sun”—life lived as though all there is to life is what we can see with our eyes and experience with our senses—is meaningless. Why is there such a void? Because God created us for something beyond what we can experience in the here-and-now. Solomon said of God, “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men...” . In our hearts we are aware that the “here-and-now” is not all that there is.
In Genesis, the first book of the Bible, we find that God created mankind in His image . This means that we are more like God than we are like anything else (any other life form). We also find that before mankind fell into sin and the curse of sin came upon the earth, the following things were true: 1) God made man a social creature 2) God gave man work; 3) God had fellowship with man ; and 4) God gave man dominion over the earth . What is the significance of these things? God intended for each of these to add to our fulfillment in life, but all of these (especially man's fellowship with God) were adversely affected by man's fall into sin and the resulting curse upon the earth .In Revelation, the last book of the Bible, God reveals that He will destroy this present earth and heavens and usher in the eternal state by creating a new heaven and a new earth. At that time, He will restore full fellowship with redeemed mankind, while the unredeemed will have been judged unworthy and cast into the lake of fire . The curse of sin will be done away with; there will be no more sin, sorrow, sickness, death, or pain. God will dwell with them, and they shall be His sons Thus, we come full circle: God created us to have fellowship with Him, man sinned, breaking that fellowship, God restores that fellowship fully in the eternal state. To go through life achieving everything only to die separated from God for eternity would be worse than futile! But God has made a way to not only make eternal bliss possible but also life on earth satisfying and meaningful. How is this eternal bliss and “heaven on earth” obtained?Meaning of life restored through Jesus ChristReal meaning in life, both now and in eternity, is found in the restoration of the relationship with God that was lost with Adam and Eve's fall into sin. That relationship with God is only possible through His Son, Jesus Christ. Eternal life is gained when we repent of our sin (no longer want to continue in it) and Christ changes us, making of us new creations, and we rely on Jesus Christ as Savior.Real meaning in life is not found only in accepting Jesus as Savior, as wonderful as that is. Rather, real meaning in life is when one begins to follow Christ as His disciple, learning of Him, spending time with Him in His Word, communing with Him in prayer, and in walking with Him in obedience to His commands. If you are not a Christian (or perhaps a new believer), you might be saying to yourself, “That does not sound very exciting fulfilling to me!” But Jesus made the following statements:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” . “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” . “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it”. “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart”.
What all of these verses are saying is that we have a choice. We can continue to seek to guide our own lives, which results in emptiness, or we can choose to pursue God and His will for our lives with a whole heart, which will result in living life to the full, having the desires of our hearts met, and finding contentment and satisfaction. This is so because our Creator loves us and desires the best for us (not necessarily the easiest life, but the most fulfilling).The Christian life can be compared to the choice of whether to purchase the expensive seats at a sporting event that are close to the action, or pay less and watch the game from a distance. Watching God work “from the front row” is what we should choose but, sadly, is not what most people choose. Watching God work firsthand is for whole-hearted disciples of Christ who have truly stopped pursuing their own desires to pursue instead God's purposes. They have paid the price (complete surrender to Christ and His will); they are experiencing life to its fullest; and they can face themselves, their fellow man, and their Maker with no regrets. Have you paid the price? Are you willing to? If so, you will not hunger after meaning or purpose again.While some people find meaning through religion or acquiring wealth, John says that he find Star Wars action figures to be a much more flexible and organic expression of life’s relentless struggles and how we meet them. John’s wife, who he first met at a Star Wars convention, tolerates his collection of action figures, but thinks it’s a little too intense: “I feel like I’m surrounded by 500 tiny warriors poised for battle; I can think of more soothing decorations to place around the apartment.”Each of these questions focuses on a unique point. The first, for example, asks whether there is an over-arching design or goal to human existence that might clarify my place in the grand scheme of things. The second asks whether some approaches to life are better than others. All of the above questions, though, presume that something’s not quite right with life as we currently experience it, and we’d like a solution to the problem. Philosophers are not the only ones interested in questions about life’s meaning. Psychological studies tell us that happiness declines in our 20s and returns around age 50. That’s a long period of personal struggle for each of us, and today’s self-help industry has jumped right in to address our problems. While many of these involve specific concerns – relationship issues, alcohol dependence -- others are more general in nature. A mid-life crisis or a “spiritual” crisis, for example, will often involve larger questions of purpose and fulfillment. Philosophical discussions of the meaning of life are not meant to compete with self-help therapies. The main appeal of philosophy’s contributions to this issue rests in the puzzle itself: here is a timeless problem that touches the very core of human existence. What exactly is behind the problem and which, if any, of the stock solutions are plausible? Many of the proposed solutions come from ancient traditions—both religious and nonreligious. To get a complete picture of their approaches to life’s meaning, we’d need to immerse ourselves in all the particulars of those traditions and the precisely defined lifestyles that they advocate. The best we can do here, though, is consider some dominant themes of these traditions, along with some common criticisms of them. The criticisms we’ll look at are by no means refutations of those traditions, and advocates of those traditions would certainly have responses to them. Rather, the critiques serve more to help define their limits rather than to simply dismiss them.
LIFE’S CHRONIC AILMENTS
Preoccupied with our own private problems, it’s easy for us to forget that for around 100,000 years human beings just like us have been on this planet, undoubtedly wrestling with their own issues of happiness and contentment. It should be no surprise that, as soon as writing was invented, ancient people inscribed their struggles to find life’s meaning. Their accounts don’t typically begin “Today I had a really bad day”; instead, writers embedded their insights into mythological narratives, the popular writing genre of the time. Three ancient discussions are especially outstanding because of their insight and influence, and each describes a particular obstacle that stands in the way of us having a meaningful life.
Gilgamesh and Death. One of the world’s oldest surviving stories is the Epic of Gilgamesh, composed about 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Gilgamesh, a brave and heroic king, just witnessed the death of his close friend and became distressed with the prospect that he too would someday die. There’s got to be some cure for death, he thought, and so he set out on a journey to discover it. Everyone he encountered on his travels, even animals, tried to discourage him from pursuing his plan, but he pressed on all the same. He then found a famous man named Utnapishtim who had himself achieved immortality. Utnapishtim was the Mesopotamian Noah who survived the great flood. Warned by a goddess of the forthcoming deluge, Utnapishtim built a ship to save himself and his family; he was granted immortality as a reward for his efforts. Gilgamesh was shocked when he first set his eyes on Utnapishtim, who, while immortal, continued to age. The old man was now so decrepit that he could barely move. Gilgamesh nevertheless asked for advice and Utnapishtim offered a suggestion: Gilgamesh could conquer death by staying awake for seven nights straight. Gilgamesh accepted the challenge, but fell asleep as soon as he sat down. When awakened, he was prepared to return home without success. Utnapishtim’s wife then urged the old man to tell Gilgamesh about a secret cure for death: at the bottom of the ocean there’s a spiky plant that brings endless youth to anyone who eats it. Gilgamesh ran to the ocean, and, with rocks tied to his feet, jumped in and sank to the bottom. He grabbed the spiky plant, untied the rocks and floated back to the surface. Plant in hand, he joyfully set out on his return journey and when almost home he stopped to wash himself off in a stream, first placing the plant on the bank. While bathing, though, an old snake slithered up to the plant, ate it, and immediately became young; it then slithered away. Gilgamesh’s one chance at becoming immortal was thus ruined. He arrived home in a state of depression, and, in spite of the efforts of his friends to cheer him up, he remained inconsolabl There are two morals of this story. The first and obvious one is that, as strongly as we desire to live forever, the inevitable truth is that we will all die. Given the choice, virtually all of us would jump at the chance to live forever, and the fact that we can’t creates a dark cloud over life’s meaning. The second and more interesting moral is that we cannot easily accept our deaths and we may do some crazy things to cheat the grim reaper. While the epic of Gilgamesh is just a myth, this second moral has played out countless times in the real world. In ancient China, many religious believers devoted themselves to conquering death through the strangest of techniques. One involved drinking chemical concoctions which would supposedly balance out the forces within the human body and thereby obstruct the process of dying. Ironically, many believers poisoned themselves to death through these experiments. Another technique involved holding one’s breath for longer and longer periods of time. Eventually the believer would not need to breathe at all, and thereby become immortal. Today, several organizations are devoted to achieving physical immortality. Some recommend taking as many as 250 nutritional supplements a day. Others place hope in biological advances that will reverse the natural deterioration of human cells. Still others look forward to the day when our minds can become digitized – essentially making computerized versions of our present brain processes.What should we think about these efforts to avoid dying? One of the more notable philosophical discussions of death is by German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). Death, according to Heidegger, is not really an event that happens to me, since it just involves the termination of all possible experiences that I might have. After all, it is impossible for me to experience my own death. Rather than thinking of death as an episode that takes place at the tail end of my life, I should instead view it as an integral part of who I am right now, and during each moment of my life in the future. I continually aim towards death and, even when I feel healthy, in a fundamental way I’m really terminally ill. It’s like playing a game such as soccer where, embedded in every moment, there is the idea that time is running out. So, Heidegger says, if I ignore my persistent movement towards death – or resist it as Gilgamesh did – I’m just deceiving myself and living in a substandard world of make-believe. By contrast, a proper understanding of death clearly lays down the basic rules of the game of life and thereby gives life form and purpose.If I could continually think of myself as on the path to death as Heidegger suggests, that might help me accept my mortality. However, while my body is clearly designed to die, my mind seems to be hardwired to think that I’m immortal, and there’s little that I can do to resist that feeling. For one thing, the natural instinct to survive compels me to resist death at almost all costs; this is something that I share with many creatures in the animal world. For another, I can’t psychologically conceive of the future without secretly injecting myself into it. Even if I try to picture the world a thousand years down the road, I’m still there as a kind of ghostly spectator to the events I’m imagining. Whether I like it or not, I’m inherently resistant to the idea of my non-existence. My natural human attitude towards death, then, may be to simply assume that I’m immortal, and, at the same time, be horrified when I look in the mirror and see my body disintegrating before my eyes. So, anxiety over death, like Gilgamesh experienced, may just be part of life.Sisyphus and Futility. In Homer’s Odyssey, the adventurous hero Odysseus stops by Hades – the dwelling place of the dead – to chat with deceased friends. While there, he sees several legendary people who are being punished for evils they committed when alive. There’s one fellow whose body is stretched out over a nine acre area. Lying helplessly, two vultures pick at his liver; he swats them to shoo them away, but they keep returning. Another fellow is parched with thirst, but cannot succeed in reaching water. Wading in a lake up to his chin, whenever he stoops down to drink, it immediately dries up leaving only dusty ground. He sees succulent fruit trees above him, but as soon as he reaches for their produce the wind sweeps the branches into the clouds.And then there is Sisyphus, a deceitful king who tricked the god of death and stayed alive longer than he should have. He finally died and went to Hades, but the punishment for his trickery was not a pleasant one. Day after day he pushes a huge stone up a hill, but, always losing energy as he nears the top, he lets it go and it rolls back down. Homer describes the scene here:
I saw Sisyphus at his endless task raising his gigantic stone with both his hands. With hands and feet he tried to roll it up to the top of the hill, but always, just before he could roll it over onto the other side, its weight would be too much for him, and, without pity, the stone would come thundering down again onto the plain below. Then he would begin trying to push it up hill again, and, as the sweat ran off him and steam rose from his head.All of these scenes from Hades depict people trapped into performing futile tasks – swatting vultures, stooping to drink, pushing a bolder. It’s the image of Sisyphus, though, that’s had the most lasting impact, and for nearly 3,000 years writers have used him as a symbol for the emptiness of life’s endeavors.
Sisyphus’s fate is frighteningly similar to the assembly line jobs that workers face throughout the world. Jill works in a lawnmower manufacturing plant, and her job is to bolt lawnmower blades onto motors. She has thirty seconds to line up the pieces and attach them together. As soon as one is done, another follows on its heels. To reduce monotony, the factory rotates Jill and other employees from one work station to another, but, after a few minutes, the routine kicks in. Jill likes her co-workers and has no complaints against her supervisor. Still, at the end of the day, she feels that she may as well have been pushing a boulder up a hill. It’s not just assembly line jobs that carry a sense of tedious futility. Accountants, teachers, doctors, and virtually all skilled workers face early burnout. Surveys show that about 70% of workers dislike or downright hate their jobs – much of which owes to grinding and pointless routines. What we do in our spare time is often no more rewarding. A good portion of the day is spent in monotonous domestic chores – cleaning, driving to and fro, shopping – which, year after year, seem as futile as assembling lawnmower blades.French philosopher Albert Camus (1913-1960) believed that the story of Sisyphus had another symbolic message. Yes, many of life’s specific tasks certainly feel futile; however, what’s more discouraging is that the sum total of a person’s life efforts may seem pointless. Camus called this the absurdity of life. Human life, he argued, cannot be neatly dissected and understood by human reason in the same way that scientists might successfully analyze and understand chemical reactions. We strive to be happy, but instead are trapped in a life of futile efforts. As much as we try to make sense of it and solve the problem, we can’t; the sober reality of things simply does not live up to our optimistic expectations. The problem is so bad that it might drive some to suicide. So, Sisyphus represents the overwhelming struggle that we each have in overcoming a pointless life. But Camus is not content to let the issue rest with despair. Instead, he recommends that we revolt against the apparent pointlessness of life, accept our condition as limited as it is, and in that find happiness. Sisyphus should embrace his boulder-pushing endeavor; the value rests in his effort, not in what he achieves. Similarly, while I may never be able to rationally explain the purpose behind my life, I should nonetheless welcome the life that I have and create meaning for myself through my positive outlook.But is Camus’ recommendation as easily achievable as he thinks? That is, through sheer willpower can we really make ourselves happy in spite of life’s fruitlessness? The problem may be resistant to a simple attitude adjustment, as zoo keepers have recently discovered in their experience with the mental well-being of gorillas. For decades gorillas were kept in controlled enclosures with fixed routines like feeding schedules. While their basic needs were being met, the gorillas were all bored and depressed. Zoologists then discovered that gorillas needed sufficiently complex tasks to challenge them throughout the day and keep their mental energies peaked. Caretakers then started regularly altering the gorillas’ routines by introducing different climbing equipment and scattering their food around their enclosures for the gorillas to forage. By altering the gorillas’ environment in the right way, the gorillas became happier. Applying this lesson to human happiness, we might look for the kinds of challenging tasks that spark our interests throughout the day. We might need shorter and more varied work days; we might need more direct involvement with growing and preparing food; we might need the opportunity to explore new surroundings through travel; we might need to break free of overcrowded urban settings. In the end we might find that humans were designed to be content in tiny hunter-gatherer tribal groups – the condition in which the human species first evolved. In any event, modern industrial life may not be suited to ward off a sense of futility, and for us the human condition today may be inherently absurd with no real solution. Like Sisyphus, then, we unendingly push a boulder to no avail.Job and Suffering. The story of Job from the Hebrew Old Testament explores another challenge to the meaning of life. Job was not obsessed with death like Gilgamesh or disheartened from futility like Sisyphus. In fact, at the outset of the story he’s quite happy. Job is a wealthy and morally decent herdsman with a loving family, and he owns a large stock of sheep, oxen, camels, and donkeys. Then everything changes for the worse. His animals are stolen, his servants are burnt to death by fire from the sky and, worst of all, his children are killed in a tornado. Job himself is infected with itchy skin boils, which he scratches with a broken piece of pottery. In a display of sorrow, he rips his clothes and shaves his head. Three friends stop by for a visit and at first don’t even recognize Job because he’s so disfigured from his illness. For a week they sit next to him without speaking, then, breaking the silence, Job says “I wish I was born dead!” He can’t understand why God would do this to him, and he accuses God of being his tormenter. His friends try to explain God’s role in his misfortunes. One friend argues that people suffer when they forget God and, so, Job must have abandoned God at some point in his life. Another argues that people suffer when they commit some moral offense, and no one can fully know all the things that God finds evil. So, in spite of Job’s protests of being morally blameless, he nevertheless must have committed some offense that isn’t immediately apparent. Job insists, though, that he did nothing wrong. Finally, God himself appears in a thunderstorm and sets the record straight: God is infinitely great, Job is virtually insignificant and, so, Job has no right to complain.
The problem raised in the story of Job is how we explain human suffering. While all suffering is inherently bad, though, it’s only a specific type of misery that casts a serious shadow over the meaning of life. Suppose I pick up a hammer and intentionally hit myself on the foot with it. The explanation of my suffering is clear and there is no moral mystery to be solved: I have no one to blame but my foolish self. This is a rule of life that I understand and accept, no matter how miserable I make myself. Suffering of this sort, then, poses no real threat to a meaningful life. It may not even be so bad if you intentionally hammer away at my foot, so long as you are arrested and convicted of assault. Even though I’m in pain, I can be consoled by the fact that justice has been done and you are held accountable for my suffering. So, even unjustified suffering like this won’t necessarily make my life meaningless. The real problem occurs when the suffering is both unprovoked and unresolved, which is exactly what Job faced. In spite of his friends’ accusations, Job was convinced that he did nothing to deserve his suffering; from his perspective, it was completely unprovoked. It was also unresolved since, when his livestock was stolen the bad guys got away with it. If they had been arrested and forced to compensate Job for his losses, then perhaps Job could have accepted the situation and moved on. Job was not so lucky, though. Similarly, when his children were killed, he could not just replace his old family with a new one. He also could receive no consolation prize that would compensate him for his agonizing illness.With no resolution to these unprovoked tragedies, Job is left wondering why they happened. Part of human nature is to seek out the hidden causes of things and resolve mysteries. When tragedy strikes us through no fault of our own, we are inclined to find some cause and, more importantly, cast blame on that cause when we can. This is one reason why lawsuits are so common today. If I trip over a curb, it’s the city’s fault for placing it where they did, and I sue them. If I fall off a ladder, it’s the ladder company’s fault for not warning me about possible dangers, and I sue them. If Job had the chance, he might have sued his local police for not catching the thieves, or sued the National Weather Service for not forewarning him of the tornado. But the more irrational our accusations are, the less comfort we can take in them, and, in our more clear-headed moments, we are still left wondering why these tragedies happened. When we fail in our attempts to find blame with human causes for our misery, many people, like Job, cast blame on divine causes. An all powerful God should protect me from unprovoked suffering, and if he doesn’t, then he’s to blame. In Job’s words, God is our tormentor.
In my efforts to comfort you I said, “I know this is painful for you, but don’t be discouraged. God is infinitely great and you are by comparison insignificant; this is what we learn from the story of Job.” This would offend you more than it would console you. In the course of our lives, most of us experience tragedies that are unprovoked and unresolved -- property loss, the death of loved ones, serious illness. We can surely appreciate Job’s despair when no satisfactory explanation is available.
B. ANCIENT GREEK SOLUTIONS:Just as problems with the meaning of life were voiced early on in human civilization, so too did the ancient world propose solutions. The theories that they suggested were quite varied, and we’d be hard pressed to find a solution today which wasn’t first entertained back then. The first set of solutions we’ll look at are from ancient Greece. For a brief period of time, Greek philosophers were in the self-help business and they offered step-by-step methods for achieving happiness. Four approaches were so popular that even today their names are household words: Epicureanism, Stoicism, Skepticism, and Cynicism. Here are some of their main themes.Epicureanism and Pleasure. Jack, an English professor from a large and prestigious university, thinks he’s cracked the code to happiness. Divorced and in his mid 40’s, he makes a good income at a job that doesn’t require much work. He published a lot earlier in his career, but now he rides on his reputation and gets by doing minimal preparation for the few classes that he’s required to teach. In his spare time he indulges his many cravings. An enthusiast of specialty foods, he is intimately familiar with the menus of every fine restaurant in his area and he regularly attends wine and cheese tasting events. During the day he reads novels, plays tennis, visits art museums, and takes sculpting classes. In the evening he watches foreign films at art houses, after which he frequents local jazz clubs. On school breaks he flies to Europe, sampling the cultural offerings there. His passions, though, are not limited to food, art and travel. Jack possesses an animal magnetism that makes him particularly successful in the romance department. Each semester he invites a new female graduate assistant to be his lover for the duration of the term. While the women know that the affair is only temporary, they happily agree, and even recommend possible partners for his next semester. On his birthday, his ex-lovers who are still in the area throw him a party. In a word, Jack is an Epicurean.The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-271 BCE) believed that the job of philosophy is to help people attain happiness; a philosophy that does not heal the soul, he argues, is no better than medicine that cannot cure the body. His formula for attaining human happiness is simple: increase pleasure and decrease pain. Personal pleasure is the only thing that we should pursue, and the value of everything we do in life is judged by that standard. The pleasures that Epicurus recommends are precisely the ones that Jack enjoys, but he warns that we should not pursue all pleasures with equal zeal. First, some are physical such as Jack’s romances, and others are mental such as Jack’s love of art; the mental ones are more important than the physical ones. Second, some desires are not entirely necessary, such as the desire for luxury food, and we should pursue these with moderation. Third, Epicurus warns us to avoid placing short term desires above long-term ones. For example, if Jack skipped teaching his classes for the short term goal of visiting a museum, then he’d likely lose his job and his happy lifestyle would come crashing down.Is Epicureanism a reasonable path to human happiness? While we all naturally want pleasure, there is something suspect about a lifestyle that is devoted entirely to its pursuit. Let’s grant that Jack is truly happy with his Epicurean existence. There’s no telling, though, how long those activities will sustain his interest. Part of the joy he experiences comes from the newness of his activities: a new restaurant, a new art exhibit, a new story plot, a new lover. There are only a finite number of spices to mix into one’s food, though, and eventually even the most unique of Jack’s experiences will take on familiar patterns and become routine. He’ll be like Sisyphus pushing a gem-encrusted boulder up a hill, a task no less futile than pushing an ordinary rock. Further, the happiness that Jack does experience rests on a stroke of good fortune that may easily change. If his university cracks down on his laziness, he’ll have far less leisure time for his hobbies. If his ex-wife sues him for alimony, he won’t be able to cover the costs of his activities. As he grows older, young women will be repulsed by his romantic advances. Thus, indulging in pleasure is not a very stable road to happiness if it rests on so many factors beyond our control.
Epicurus himself was very restrained in the pleasures that he pursued. He lived on a small food diet, avoided luxuries, and strived for self-sufficiency. “The greatest benefit of self-sufficiency,” he argued, “is freedom.” It seems, then, that the founder of this pleasure-indulging lifestyle was far less Epicurean than we might think, and, instead, he grounded his happiness upon a feeling of independence. Thus, pursuing pleasure alone is no guarantee of a meaningful life, which Epicurus himself recognized.
Stoicism and Accepting Fate. Imagine that you are a captured soldier detained in a prisoner of war camp. Not particularly fond of the Geneva Convention, your captors have provided you with stark and sometimes inhumane accommodations. Your cell block is unheated, your bedding is covered with fleas, your meals are unpredictable and, when they are served, the food is often rotten. About once a week you are interrogated by your captors, who psychologically intimidate you and sometimes beat you. You don’t know how long your detention will last, or even if you’ll survive. In these conditions, could you possibly be happy? For starters, you’d have to condition yourself to ignore the physical harshness of your environment. Mustering all your mental strength, you might eventually get used to your cold room, unsanitary bedding and disgusting food. You’d then have to accept that you are at the mercy of the unpredictable whims of your captors who can beat you and even kill you as they see fit. Having no expectations at all about circumstances beyond your control, you might eventually be able to carve out some peace of mind. This is precisely the Stoic philosophy for achieving happiness. While life is not always as grizzly as a prisoner of war camp, sometimes it is that bad, and there’s nothing we can do about it. If we place our hopes in pleasures that are beyond our control, we will inevitably be frustrated and unhappy. The moral of the story is that we should learn to accept the life that is fated for us, and never reach beyond that.One of the great teachers of Stoicism was Epictetus (c.55 – c.135 C.E.), a former slave who knew first hand how brutal and unpredictable life could be. He offers an especially picturesque example to explain the Stoic solution. Think of life as a large banquet with many people sitting around a table waiting to be fed. Starting at one end of the table, serving dishes of food are passed around, and guests scoop out portions onto their plates. You are near the end of the table and for all you know the serving dishes will be empty by the time they reach you. You should not keep glancing down the table in anticipation, Epictetus advises, but wait patiently for your turn. Better yet, he says, when a serving dish finally arrives, you should just pass it along without taking anything. This is what our attitudes should be toward the things in life that we typically crave – good jobs, a loving family, luxuries – but which we can never count on. For this Stoic formula to succeed, we must learn to habitually distance ourselves from things that we desire, even when things are going our way. The goal is to acquire a constant mental state of detachment so that, in the event that circumstances sour, we won’t be disappointed.The Stoic path to happiness seems well suited for prisoners of war, slaves, and the financially destitute. For these people, life’s prospects are so dismal that placing hope beyond themselves will only make matters worse. What about the rest of us, though, who can at least occasionally count on good fortune at life’s banquet table? Sometimes I will indeed be disappointed when a serving dish comes around empty, but this may well be counterbalanced by joys I will experience when another serving dish is full. For example, when hunting for a job, I will undoubtedly be disappointed if a company rejects my application, but I can reasonably expect that some company will hire me, and it doesn’t hurt to anticipate that with hope. Epictetus thought that one of life’s biggest disappointments was the death of a loved one. His Stoic recommendation is that we should emotionally distance ourselves from our spouses and children so that, when fate unpredictably tears them away from us, we won’t be distressed. Here again, though, while the death of loved ones is devastating, it is nevertheless counterbalanced by the joy we receive from our attachment to them while they are alive. And this is an important joy in life that we would sacrifice if we followed his Stoic advice. Stoicism, then, seems to be an unnecessarily extreme and restricting avenue towards happiness, which we should adopt only as a last resort when things become overwhelmingly dismal.
Skepticism and Doubt. An organization called “The Skeptics Society” is devoted to debunking a host of questionable beliefs, including UFOs, alien abductions, ESP, religious miracles, time travel, and conspiracy theories. One writer for the society cast his skeptical eye on the famed 1947 alien space craft sighting in Roswell, New Mexico. The real event, he explains, was simply a military balloon experiment, which decades later was transformed into a UFO legend. He writes,Roswell is the world’s most famous, most exhaustively investigated, and most thoroughly debunked UFO claim. It’s far past time for UFOlogists to admit it and move on. Those who hope to discover alien life are going to have to look where the aliens are -- which is (if anywhere), somewhere else. Perhaps outer space would be a good place to start. By exposing the faults in controversial claims such as the Roswell incident, The Skeptics Society hopes to promote critical thinking and proper scientific inquiry. The Society sees itself as following in a long skeptical tradition that began in ancient Greece, particularly the school of Skepticism founded by the philosopher Pyrrho (c.365-c.275 BCE).
Pyrrho and his followers maintained that happiness is achieved through doubt. The sort of happiness that they envisioned was mental tranquility – a peace of mind that we experience when we suspend belief. When we hold extreme views, such as belief that aliens visited Roswell, we experience a mental disturbance, and we risk being pulled from one conviction to another. If the aliens did appear there, what was their mission? If the government knew about the event, why are they covering it up? We quickly become tangled in a web of questions and concerns that don’t have good answers. It’s not just strange beliefs like this that disrupt us, but any strong conviction upsets our peace of mind when we hold rigidly to it, such as the belief that the grass in my yard is green or that the table in my kitchen is round. The solution, according to the skeptics, is to recognize that every belief is subject to doubt. The grass appears green to me because my eyes are constructed a specific way and light shines on it in a specific way. If these factors differed, then the grass would not appear green. So, I should suspend belief about whether the grass really is green. Skeptics argued that I should in fact suspend all beliefs that I hold – about external objects, God’s existence, moral values – and thereby free my mind of the conflict that these beliefs produce. By achieving this mental tranquility, I will become happy.The skeptic is probably right that the more gullible we are, the more we set ourselves up for disappointment. By believing in UFOs, horoscopes or miracle cures, we place ourselves at odds with respectable methods of inquiry and invite ridicule. If I persist in my strange beliefs, contrary to strong evidence against them, then I must brainwash myself in thinking that I’m right and everyone else is wrong, which is a discomforting prospect. But the skeptic’s larger point is that all beliefs – both strange and normal – are vulnerable to attack and should thus be rejected for the advancement of mental tranquility. There are two problems with this position. First, suppose that the skeptic is right that even our most commonsensical beliefs can be called into question, such as the belief that the table in front of me is round. It’s one thing for me to recognize the theoretical problems with that belief; it’s entirely another thing to actually suspend my belief about the table’s roundness, especially when it always appears to me that way. Commonsense beliefs like this may be beyond my control, regardless of how hard I try to suspend them. I’m forced to act on the assumption that the table is round every time I place an object onto it or walk around it. Thus, while skepticism may succeed at the theoretical level, it is virtually impossible at a practical level. The second problem is that, even if we could suspend all of our beliefs, many of life’s events would still make us unhappy. Like Sisyphus, I can still be bored to tears with my assembly line job even if I doubt that the factory actually exists. Like Job, I can still suffer enormously if my family dies in a tornado, even if I doubt whether my family actually exists. We experience many painful emotions independently of our belief convictions, and skepticism has no solution for those.
Cynicism and Defying Convention. Some years ago a music festival was launched called Lollapalooza, which traveled the country attracting large crowds of young people. While the musical groups varied, many were in the crude and abrasive Punk genre – championing a garage band sound, often with instruments out of tune and vocals off pitch. One band included a “percussionist” who grinded away on a chunk of sheet metal with an industrial disk sander. The festival was so successful that it became a yearly event and several non-musical performances were added, including a television-smashing pit. Most bizarre was a circus sideshow in which one performer ate broken glass, another impaled his cheeks with long skewers, and another lifted heavy weights from body piercings. With its growing notoriety, Lollapalooza became a symbol for a burgeoning youth counterculture that was frustrated with sterile social expectations and rebelled against prevailing values. Many of our conceptions of human happiness are rooted in traditional social expectations, such as how we should dress, what counts as good music, what we should find entertaining, how we should view authority figures. These expectations are not only restrictive, but often wholly misguided. One solution to the question of life’s meaning is to challenge cherished social conventions and through this act of defiance awaken a broader appreciation of life’s possibilities. The social rebelliousness of recent youth cultures is in many ways an embodiment of the ancient Greek philosophical school of Cynicism. The aim of that ancient movement was to show contempt for traditional social structures and values -- such as power, wealth and social status. By doing so we would rethink the influence that civilization should have on our lives, open ourselves up to a more direct connection to nature, and thereby become “citizens of the cosmos.” Cynicism was more a way of life than an exact philosophical theory, and its defenders were notorious for their shocking behavior. A case in point is Diogenes of Sinope (c. 410-320 BCE), who lived as an impoverished beggar in protest of the increasingly lavishness lifestyles of his peers. As a young man, he was exiled from his home town for defacing coins, which were symbols of economic power and political authority. When someone asked him how he felt about his exile, he replied, “That was how I became a philosopher, you miserable fool!” Hunting for a place to stay, he took up residence in a large barrel, which quickly became a stereotype for the Cynic’s lifestyle. He would sometimes walk around in broad daylight with a lit lamp, shining it in people’s faces. There is a famous, though fictitious story that Alexander the Great visited him to express his admiration. “Request anything of me that you like,” Alexander said. Diogenes was sunbathing at the time and replied, “I request that you step to one side since you’re blocking the sun.” The great conqueror responded, “If I wasn’t Alexander, I’d want to be Diogenes.There are three problems with Cynicism’s formula for a happy life. First, the most extreme cynics live like dogs – and for that reason ancient Cynics were even dubbed “dog philosophers.” Just as Diogenes lived as a beggar, some social critics today live in homeless conditions and “dumpster dive” for discarded food in trash bins. It’s difficult to see how the benefits of the extreme Cynical lifestyle outweigh such self-imposed misery. Second, for more moderate cynics, what is edgy today becomes the convention of tomorrow. Rebellious perspectives on life quickly become fashionable – even commercially profitable. The immediate impact of Cynicism in the ancient world was that writers incorporated its biting views of society into literary satire. This made for more interesting literature of the time, but its shock value eventually became much less shocking. Today, much of Lollapalooza’s rebellious artistic expression is common place, and, ironically, their artists have become pioneers of contemporary fashion. That must be discouraging for a true rebel. Third, both extreme and moderate Cynicism are overly negative approaches to life that thrive on publicly dismantling the accomplishments of others. It’s hard to see how cynics could be happy by continually having a chip on their shoulders. Offering an occasional social criticism is one thing, but doing so as a way of life would be demoralizing for the critic, and very annoying for everyone else. WESTERN RELIGIOUS SOLUTIONS:For millennia religious traditions around the world have taken on the task of explaining the meaning of life. For whatever woes we have, there is some spiritual explanation that aims to redirect us. The dominant religions in Western civilization are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and among these we find some common perspectives on life’s meaning.Having Children. One of the more famous stories from both the Jewish Bible and Muslim Koran is that of Abraham, a nomadic herdsman who longed to have children in spite of the fact that his wife was infertile. Monitoring Abraham’s situation, God offered him a deal: if he accepts God as his deity, then his descendants will be as numerous as the sand of the sea. Abraham agreed, he had his children as promised, and ultimately became the father of both the Jewish and Arabic people. While there isn’t anything uniquely “religious” about the desire to have children, many faith traditions list this as one of their top religious duties. Conservative Judaism is a case in point. Unlike other faiths that emphasize life after death, Judaism stresses the world right here and now; as one of their sacred texts states, “Better is one day in this life than all eternity in the world to come.” Reproduction is a way of achieving a type of immortality in the present world. I die, but my name, my legacy, and my family history live on through my childr.Some religious philosophers argue that God implants instincts in human nature to help guide our conduct on earth, one of which is the drive to procreate. A more secular understanding of this crucial urge is that it is the result of blind evolutionary forces which keeps animal species like ours from going extinct. Regardless of whether the desire to procreate originates from God or blind evolution, though, it’s a fact of human nature that when we reach a certain age, we have a compelling desire to have children. When we succeed, we magically gain fulfillment and a larger sense of purpose beyond our individual lives. On the other hand, failing to have children sometimes results in a sense of incompleteness and, in old age, loneliness. To combat this, childless couples frequently transform their pet dog or cat into surrogate children, and lavish love and attention on them to a degree that others find comical. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn’t. So it seems that nature rewards us when we answer its call to produce offspring, and punishes us when we don’t.
While procreation might very well give us a purpose beyond our individual selves, is it a cure-all for the problems of life’s meaning? Perhaps not. First, having children invites a new set of miseries for parents. There is the need to cut back on one’s most cherished private leisure activities to make time for the exhausting task of child-rearing. There are the constant worries about physical dangers to our children, from poorly designed highchairs to automobile accidents. There is the endless battle to block the bad influences of sex, drugs and violence in the media and schools. There are the inevitable clashes with children during the terrible twos, the rebellious teens, and all years in between. We also suffer along with our children when they are harmed or upset – as reflected in a recent expression that parents are only as happy as their saddest child. Marriages often suffer as a direct result of children, sometimes because of a decline in marital intimacy as privacy becomes impossible, other times because of fights over who should do which child-rearing chores. When things end in divorce, the presence of children can lead to vicious and all-consuming custody battles. In effect, having children involves exchanging Sisyphus’s problems for Job’s.Second, there are limits to how procreation solves Gilgamesh’s problem of human mortality. It’s an exaggeration to say that we gain immortality through our children who will outlive us by perhaps only 25 years. Our grandchildren might extend this by another 25. Generations beyond that, though, will consist of people that we’ll never know, and who will have no memories of us apart from what is conveyed in a few faded photos. The illusory nature of this kind of immortality may become more evident when our children leave the nest, take on lives of their own and become almost strangers to us. We’re once again on our own to find meaning, this time, though, while our health declines and our friends die one after the other. Life after Death. With the limited success of procreation as a cure for life’s anguish, religion offers a backup plan: finding meaning in this life through the prospect of immortality in the next. Most faith traditions present some account of life after death. While the details vary, the core notion is that the essential part of my conscious identity survives the death of my body in a more perfect state of existence. I might exist in a three-dimensional form that resembles my current shape, but is constructed from a more flawless substance. Alternatively I might exist as a purely spiritual thing that takes up no three-dimensional space. In any case, the real me lives on after my body dies.
With a single blow, the idea of life after death attacks all three classic problems of life’s meaning. Most obvious is its solution to Gilgamesh’s problem of mortality. The fact is that we never really do die. Upon the death of my body, my true self is released from its physical shackles and continues in another realm. I may not at first enthusiastically embrace the idea of physical death, which is understandable, like my reluctance to throw away an old comfortable pair of jeans for a new pair. But when I fully grasp that my real self will be preserved through this transformation, my worries about death should fade. Life after death also addresses Sisyphus’s problem of life’s pointlessness. My life’s activities may seem futile to me right now, but that’s because the physical world that I currently live in is imperfect. My efforts on earth are really just a preparation for the world to come, and as long as I keep that in view, life right now has a very clear and important point. Finally, life after death addresses Job’s problem of suffering. If I suffer right now because of a bodily ailment like cancer, I am comforted by the fact that I’ll have no physical pain in the afterlife. If I suffer now because thieves have stolen my property, I can take comfort in the fact that the scales of justice will be balanced in the afterlife: the bad guys will be punished, and the good guys rewarded. If I suffer now because of the death of a loved one, I am comforted by the knowledge that I’ll see them shortly in the afterlife.
With such an all-encompassing solution to the problem of life’s meaning, it’s no surprise that the idea of life after death has been so uniformly embraced by the world’s religions. What could be wrong with a solution that is so widespread? The first obstacle to the life after death solution concerns how strongly we actually believe in it. Let’s set aside the issue of whether an afterlife realm really exists – a matter that is stubbornly resistant to absolute proof or disproof. The more important issue concerns the level of conviction that the idea holds within us. Suppose that we passed a questionnaire out to all religious believers around the world with these two questionsThe Paris question would uniformly get a ten, but even among believers the afterlife question would not fair as well. On a good day, a believer’s conviction might hover around a ten; on a bad day, it might dip down to a one. The idea of an afterlife is the kind of conviction that requires reinforcement on a regular basis, which is precisely what religious institutions do. By contrast, there is no organization devoted to reinforcing our conviction that Paris exists; we simply believe it without any pep talk from the “Paris Exists” organization. The crucial question is whether a person’s belief in an afterlife is consistently strong enough to counteract the problems of life’s meaning. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.Suppose that you can get passed this first obstacle and you firmly believe in an afterlife – at least most of the time. The next obstacle is having confidence that you’ll actually get there. While belief in an afterlife may be widespread, paths to getting there are as numerous as the many world’s religions themselves. Again, we must set aside the question of which, if any, is actually the true path. The more pressing question is how confident you are that you’ve picked the right one. Do you have nagging doubts that maybe the religious denomination across the street is a better gamble than yours? Further, most religions set out pretty tough requirements for entrance into an afterlife – being morally upright, regularly following specific religious rituals, devotion to specific religious founders, earnestly believing a long set of doctrines. Are you sure that you dotted all of your I’s and crossed all of your “T’s” on that front? While you might still enter the afterlife, a serious oversight on your part might send you to hell rather than heaven. Some of history’s most famous religious figures were consumed with worry about whether they were fulfilling God’s expectations. Insecurity about the fine print might burden believers with more unhappiness in this life, rather than relieve the worries that they already have about a meaningful life in the here and now. At best, the hope of life after death will have limited success in giving meaning to life, and, at worst, it may add to our earthly torment.Furthering God’s Kingdom. During the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Christian philosopher Augustine (354-430) wrote a treatise titled The City of God in which he described two “cities.” On the one hand there is an earthly city, which represents a way of life that is driven by self-love and contempt for God. People of the earthly city are unhappy and experience despair since earthly notions of self-love are so distorted and misguided. On the other, there is a heavenly city which is a way of life that glorifies God and is ultimately achieved in the afterlife. While on earth, followers of the heavenly city live a God-centered life and work to advance God’s kingdom. This defines who they are, and gives a meaning to their lives which followers of the earthly city cannot experience. One Christian denomination that exemplifies this devotion to God’s kingdom is the Latter Day Saints – better known by their nickname the Mormons. Upon leaving high school, every young Mormon man and woman is expected to serve as a missionary for two years, often taking them to the far corners of the world. During this time they abstain from the leisure activities of watching movies, playing sports, and listening to popular music. Their single focus is to spread the message of God and baptize new believers. Through their devotion they become connected with a higher purpose which gives a special meaning to their lives.Regardless of the denomination, there are several common features that these religious missions exhibit, which make them larger-than-life experiences for believers. First, these are typically group-efforts among a community of believers, rather than simply isolated campaigns of individual people. It is often this connection with a larger group that gives believers a sense of belonging that they would not otherwise have and, thus, enhances their sense of life’s meaning. Second, there is devotion to a firm and sacred set of beliefs about God’s role in human affairs. While theories about the nature and existence of God are a dime a dozen, not just any view of God will do. Leaders within these religious traditions formulate precise doctrines, and believers pledge exclusive devotion to them, thereby rejecting the views of rival religious groups. By embracing these sacred doctrines, believers see themselves as embarking on a higher mission from God and not just participating in routine human-created social activity. Third, participating in this higher mission involves self-sacrifice. Furthering God’s kingdom is no easy task: it is financially costly, time consuming, and mission efforts are commonly met with brutal opposition. Yet, by enduring these hardships, believers feel a special accomplishment when they make progress.While the notion of “furthering God’s kingdom” is distinctly religious in nature, there are many non-religious groups that similarly try to transform society through some moral or political ideology. Like religious missions, these involve group efforts among like-minded people who are devoted to a precise higher calling and willingly endure hardship. Some of these social causes are preserving the environment, eliminating poverty, defending political freedoms, ending minority oppression, or creating global harmony. Devotees to these ideologies often gain a sense of life’s meaning similar to that of their religious counterparts.Whether religious or secular, there is a serious price to pay when devoting oneself to a higher mission, namely, conformity. For a group to speak with a single voice, individual members must give up much of their private identities and follow the direction of the larger collection. There is little room for dissenting opinions about the precise nature of the higher mission: this is firmly fixed in the group’s sacred doctrines and enforced by their leaders. Many believers are content to uncritically follow the directives of their traditions, but others are not. Ex-members of conservative religious groups regularly describe how restricting life was for them and how their leaders used various intimidation tactics to keep them in line. Their leaders, in turn, dismiss the disaffected members as mere trouble makers. The clash between the individual and group becomes more serious when the group’s missionary tactics are morally questionable, such as launching smear campaigns against rival religious groups. Loyal members comply, outspoken critics are shown the door. While furthering God’s kingdom may help give meaning to the lives of some people, it will be less effective for nonconforming “troublemakers”. EASTERN RELIGIOUS SOLUTIONS
Religions of Eastern Civilization include Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and perhaps a dozen other traditions of varying sizes. Eastern religions have advocated all three of the above Western solutions to life’s meaning with their own regional twists. In addition to these, though, we find solutions grounded in the more unique philosophical elements of the Eastern traditions themselves. Again, it is important to understand that each religion—Eastern or Western—has its own long and elaborate tradition of beliefs and worship practices that give meaning to believers’ lives. We will look at only three highlights here.Daoism and the Way of Nature. The Daoist religion emerged in China about 2,500 years ago, and its principal message is that of the Dao – the Chinese word for “way” or “path”. More precisely, it is the path of nature itself, which creates and guides everything we see. The Daoist solution to life’s meaning is picturesquely presented in a classic tale. One day a prince stopped by to see his cook who was in the process of cutting beef. All of the cook’s motions were like a harmonious ballet as he placed his feet, moved his knees, heaved his shoulders and brought his knife down on the meat. “You have very admirably perfected your art” the prince said. The cook laid down his knife and explained, “I follow the Dao, which is more important than any other skill. Many years ago when I began cutting meat, all I saw was a large chunk of flesh, which I chopped away at. In time I noticed the natural crevices in the meat and, in a spirit-like manner, allowed my knife to glide through them with ease. By doing this I avoided tough ligaments and large bones. An ordinary cook changes his knife every month because he hacks. A good cook changes his every year because he cuts cleanly. I’ve been using this knife now for nineteen years.” The prince responded, “Amazing! By hearing you speak of your craft, I’ve learned how to tend to my life!”The cook’s message is that we should live in accord with the flow of nature, and not aggressively go against it. Picture a stick floating down a river. When it bumps into a rock, it doesn’t bash its way through the obstruction; instead, it gently moves around it and continues down its course. Daoism has a range of specific recommendations for how we should tend to our lives. For example, we should abandon needless rules of law, morality, and etiquette and instead spontaneously follow the simple inclinations that nature has implanted in us. When we are hungry, nature will direct us to acquire food. If other people are hungry, nature will direct us to assist them. We should even avoid expanding our knowledge through study since this will obstruct the wisdom that nature has already placed within us. By following the Dao, our entire social environments will be transformed. Gone will be the hustle and bustle of big cities, our reliance on intrusive technology, and the endless conflicts between each other. We will instead live more tranquil lives in natural surroundings, and work more directly with nature to meet our immediate needs.Daoism also has definite suggestions for dealing with life’s woes. If I become gravely ill, I should recognize this as part of the natural cycle of things from growth to decay. The prospect of dying itself should not agitate me since from my raw elements nature will bring forth new life in the continuing cycle of birth and death. By understanding and experiencing the Dao, I see my place in the natural course of things, yield to its power, and peacefully accept whatever happens to me. It’s hard to be critical of a philosophy whose central theme is to return to nature – an intuition that resonates within many of us. But Daoism relies on an extreme conception of human nature that is difficult to accept. Let’s grant that humans are products of natural forces and we are ultimately at the mercy of natural cycles of growth and decay. Still, humans come into existence with very few natural inclinations to guide us through life. Our survival skills have been honed through thousands of years of trial and error, and passed down from one generation to another. Without this pool of acquired knowledge to draw from, even the simplest task of finding our next meal would be insurmountable. Nature’s unforgiving message to the human race has been “Good luck in finding your own way: if you fail, you die.” There are indeed important lessons that we can learn from observing nature at work, but the most valuable of these – successful farming, cures for diseases -- result from careful and even scientific analysis. Our actual lot in life does not seem to be as passive as Daoism suggests, and any happiness we experience must be achieved while we aggressively acquire the knowledge that we need to survive. Thus, there is little opportunity to peacefully glide through life as Daosim recommends, and its solution to the problem of life’s meaning looks a little impractical.Buddhism and Extinguishing Desire. The Buddhist religion was founded around 500 BCE in India by a man named Siddhartha Gautama – later given the honorary title of “Buddha,” which means enlightened one. After many years of attempting to achieve enlightenment through traditional religious paths, the Buddha worked out an approach which he felt answered the fundamental question of life’s meaning. He encapsulated his position in Four Noble Truths. The first truth is that life is suffering. From the moment that we’re born until we die, everything we do involves suffering – physical pains, emotional traumas, endless frustrations and disappointments. While Job’s problem of suffering was sparked by specific tragedies, Buddha maintained more generally that suffering is an integral part of our daily lives and is the obstacle we face in our life’s quest for meaning and happiness. The second noble truth is that the source of all suffering is desire. We crave almost anything that might bring us pleasure – sensuality, personal opinions, cherished traditions – and these yearnings become so intense that they rise to the level of addictions. The third is that the cure for suffering is the elimination of desire. If suffering is caused by desire, then it stands to reason that by eradicating desire we thereby end suffering. The fourth is what he calls the eightfold path, which is a series of eight techniques for eliminating desire. The specific paths involve the proper cultivation of our understanding, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration. Buddha modeled the Four Noble Truths after the method used by physicians of his day for treating illnesses, namely, identify the disease and its cause, determine whether it is curable, and then prescribed the cure. This is a perfect way of understanding the issue of life’s meaning: target the problem and offer a solution. Virtually all of Buddhist philosophy and theology is an extended commentary on the Four Noble Truths. But it is the third truth -- eliminating desire – that concerns us here. This is the celebrated Buddhist concept of nirvana, which literally means “to extinguish.” In essence, we extinguish our desires just as we might blow out the flame of a candle. Extinguishing our desires, though, involves much more than losing our various cravings: I must lose my individual identity and even my self-consciousness as a distinct being. As long as I experience life in the usual way, I will be tainting everything through my private, self-indulgent identity. By crushing my identity, I crush all the suffering that I’ve created through my desires.From one perspective, Nirvana appears to be the ultimate solution to the problem of life’s meaning. Once the “I” is removed from the equation, there is nothing left to experience life’s misery. There are questions about this solution, though, which Buddhists themselves are quick to raise. First, to truly extinguish my identity, don’t I have to be dead? As long as I remain alive, I will always be experiencing my self-identity. It seems strange to say that the goal of life is to be completely annihilated through death. Second, while most Buddhists feel that nirvana can be achieved while we are still alive, the concept of nirvana-in-this-life is almost impossible to describe, and very difficult to achieve. The Dalai Lama, one of Buddhism’s great leaders, describes the frustration that many Buddhists experience regarding nirvana:I myself feel and also tell other Buddhists that the question of nirvana will come later. There is not much hurry. But if in day to day life you lead a good life, honestly, with love, with compassion, with less selfishness, then automatically it will lead to nirvana. Opposite to this, if we talk about nirvana, talk about philosophy, but do not bother much about day to day practice, then you may reach a strange nirvana but will not reach the correct nirvana because your daily practice is nothing.
In short, nirvana is shrouded in mystery, and the best I can do is follow the recommended paths for achieving it, while closing my eyes to what nirvana actually is. While nirvana might be an effective solution to the problem of life’s meaning, it is difficult for us to examine this possibility when we can’t easily put it into words.
Hinduism and the Four Goals of Life. Originating around 3,500 years ago, the Hindu religion is a diverse collection of beliefs and practices that emerged throughout India’s rich history. The religion has many different gods, devotional practices and philosophies, which believers can freely select from -- kind of like a religious a la carte menu. Similarly, when it comes to the question of life’s meaning, Hindu tradition does not restrict itself to one simple answer. Rather, it offers four distinct goals of life, which people should embrace in varying degrees during different periods of their lives.The first goal of life is pleasure in its assorted emotional and physical forms: food, art, music, dance, and even sex. One of the more infamous Hindu writings, the Kama Sutra, is actually a handbook on sexual activity, vividly describing dozens of techniques. We are naturally inclined to pursue pleasures, and in their proper setting it is fully appropriate for us to fulfill our desires. The second goal is material success. Like pleasure, we’re naturally inclined to acquire wealth and power, which not only keeps us from being impoverished but gives us a sense of accomplishment. The goals of pleasure and material success are most fitting for younger couples who are raising families. As we mature, we embrace the third goal, namely moral harmony, which helps regulate our desires for pleasure and success, but also sparks our social responsibility towards other people. The fourth goal is religious enlightenment where believers become spiritually released from the constraints of human life and attain ultimate happiness. This final goal is best pursued when our family responsibilities are behind us and we can go off in seclusion and practice meditation without distraction.There is nothing particularly original with any of these four goals individually. We find each advocated by different philosophers from around the world, such as Epicurus’ recommendation to pursue pleasure. The unique insight of Hinduism, though, is that we are complex creatures who change over the years, and there is no single goal that will give us meaning at every stage of our lives. It doesn’t make sense to offer a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of life’s meaning when people are so diverse. But this is precisely what many philosophers have done. For example, the Stoics recommend that we should resign ourselves to fate, and this single formula, they believe, is the sole solution to the problem of life’s meaning. This may be why the question of life’s meaning still seems to demand an answer after thousands of years of attempted answers: we’ve gotten overly simplistic solutions to a very complex problem.
In keeping with Hindu tradition, perhaps we should approach the meaning of life as we would an a la carte menu: we can pick a few solutions now and, when life’s circumstances change, go back to the menu and pick a few others. While Hinduism suggests four specific ones – each of which is an excellent menu item – we could add all of the other solutions that we’ve discussed so far, Greek, Western religious and Eastern religious. If I ever become a prisoner of war, then I might want to pick the Stoic option of resigning myself to fate. If life becomes too frenzied for me, I might want to pick the Daoist option of following the way of nature. Religiously inclined people can pick the Christian “furthering God’s kingdom” or the Buddhist quest for nirvana, depending on their religious preference. The point is to seek a solution that best addresses a specific life circumstance or problem. The more creative we are in adding items to the menu, the less likely we’ll be overcome by Gilgamesh’s problem of death, Sisyphus’s problem of futility, Job’s problem of suffering, or any other problem that undermines our sense of purpose or happiness.
PHILOSOPHY AND LIFE’S MEANING
While the subject of the meaning of life is philosophically interesting in its own right, it is also a good introduction to the various fields of philosophical exploration. We’ve seen that questions of life’s meaning lead to puzzles about how we know things, such as the existence of an afterlife, the nature of nirvana, or whether the table in front of me actually exists. Important questions are also raised about the nature of reality – whether God exists and whether there is a spiritual realm beyond the physical one that we see around us. A range of issues emerge about human nature, such as whether my mind can exist independently of my body and whether my actions are within my control. Finally, there are value questions relating to our conduct towards other people and what kind of social structure will best facilitate happiness.no theory is sacred, and every proposed idea will invariably be followed by criticisms, and these criticisms followed by responses. For example, the story of Gilgamesh suggests that we are burdened by a fear of death. The life-after-death solution aims to address this fear by giving us hope beyond the grave. One criticism of this solution is that even believers occasionally have doubts about the existence of an afterlife. The debate need not end here, though. The believer might counter this with an argument for the existence of an afterlife; the critic might then challenge the validity of the believer’s argument. Hopefully at some point in the debate one side will seem more compelling than another. But even if the discussion appears to end in a stalemate – as it certainly may with many solutions to the problem of life’s meaning – all is not lost. In some cases truth is not necessarily found in the philosophical theories themselves but rather in the critical give-and-take surrounding those theories.Finally, we see from the discussions in this chapter that there are different ways of addressing philosophical issues. Some are more scientific, drawing on tangible experience and the contributions of researchers. Others are more introspective, relying on private reflections about the human thought process. Still others rest on pure logic, such as whether two positions can be consistently held at the same time. Philosophy also developed different forms of expression that communicate different content. While many philosophical works are in the form of systematic treatises, philosophy is also expressed in the form of dialogues, meditations, poetic expressions, diaries, confessions, fragments, commentaries, geometric structures. Philosophers have pretty much used every style of written communication to express their ideas. In every case, though, philosophy aims to challenge us to rethink our old assumptions. While philosophy involves a certain amount of mental gymnastics, the rewards are well worth the effort as we begin to see issues in new ways.