3 ms·

The author conflates procrastination, idleness and perfectionism, as if they were interchangeable. I would argue that they are not, even if they appear to be si

The author conflates procrastination, idleness and perfectionism, as if they were interchangeable. I would argue that they are not, even if they appear to be similar, at the surface. While perfectionism CAN sometimes lead to procrastination and procrastination occasionally manifests itself as idleness, they are distinctly different phenomena arising from different mental states. But that's not all. Read the column a little bit further and you find the author introduces yet another romantic notion to support his argument: nothingness. > Idleness, then, reveals an experience of nothingness. While nothingness tends to occupy a central position in Eastern traditions like Buddhism and Taoism... Nothingness ("Shunyata", in Sanskrit) is not about idleness or vacuum but means something very specific. It refers to the absence of a solid, tangible self (or an ego, if you must use a Western term). Buddhism's core practice is often mis-interpreted as "don't do something, sit there!" but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Zen Buddhism and Taoism's idea of "nothingness" is not about inactivity but about keeping the "self" out of activity.

qntty 10y ago
>First, the author conflates procrastination, idleness and perfectionism, as if they were interchangeable But he distinguishes them later: The drama of procrastination comes from its split nature. Just like the architect from Shiraz, the procrastinator is smitten by the perfect picture of that which is yet to be born; he falls under the spell of all that purity and splendor. What he is beholding is something whole, uncorrupted by time, untainted by the workings of a messed-up world. At the same time, though, the procrastinator is fully aware that all that has to go. No sooner does he get a glimpse of the perfection that precedes actualization than he is doomed to become part of the actualization process himself, to be the one who defaces the ideal and brings into the world a precarious copy, unlike the architect who saves it by burning the plans. So in this view procrastination is not his idealized perfectionism ("burning the plans") or his idealized idleness ("intuiting a cosmic meaninglessness, which comes along with the realization that, with every action, we get only more entangled in the universal farce"). It has a split nature that's the worst of both. Also it's possible that his reference to nothingness doesn't mean sunyata, but "making no karma" by not participating in samsara.
- HenryTheHorse 10y ago
  Re "samsara", I am sure you know that in the Hindu/Buddhist sense it is more than just the physical samsara, whereas idleness necessarily refers to inaction. By avoiding action and therefore responsibility, one could still be awfully entangled in samsara. (Just ask any developer who's browsing HN or Reddit while struggling to meet a deadline!) That said, I did like your interpretation of "making no karma", even though Buddhism makes it very clear that karma-making occurs even with the skandhas, the "sense-gate" or mental/emotional fabrications.
  - qntty 10y ago
    Yes, in the Buddhist view, you accumulate karma no matter what you're doing (even if you're procrastinating something), so long as you have an idea of self. So the only way to "really do nothing" is to free yourself from samsara (not a physical place, but the continuity of craving).
tn13 10y ago
> Nothingness ("Shunyata", in Sanskrit) is not about idleness or vacuum but means something very specific. It refers to the absence of a solid, tangible self (or an ego, if you must use a Western term). Buddhism's core practice is often mis-interpreted as "don't do something, sit there!" but it couldn't be farther from the truth. I think you have got it almost right. The roots of meditation is from Rig-veda's riddle hymn composed by Dhirgatamas (one who stares in infinite darkness). The hymn describes two birds one enjoying eating berries where as other simply looks at it. Shunyata is a concept popularized by Buddhist traditions with a very specific meaning but overall the concept of "do nothing" in meditative traditions of east has nothing to do with literal meaning of doing nothing instead depending on the specific school of meditaiton it differs. Mindfulness/Vipashyana (look inside) involves being alert while not acting at all which actually improves your sensitivity and observance of the surrounding where as Sahajmarga would involve becoming one with the existence while eliminating all thought. It is actually lot of hard work!
orthoganol 10y ago
I always thought 'nothingness' was a central ontological concept in Buddhism, not just a concept as it relates to a 'self'. For Zen Buddhism, deny the substantial character of reality, assert that the only absolute is the void, existentially assume this void, and assert the sameness of the phenomena around you. I imagine something which encourages you to deny your desires must steer you in the direction of inactivity - in as much as desire motivates activity (not biological activity, but 'start a startup' kind of activity). Although I'm aware Western versions have squared it with work place productivity, even used by hard working CEOs at the top, it feels perhaps dishonest to claim "Buddhism" rather than utility for feeling centered (and it certainly is effective there).
- HenryTheHorse 10y ago
  > deny the substantial character of reality It's a popular belief but neither Zen nor Theravadan Buddhism makes any claims about "Reality". They only talk about the lack of a substantial self. (After all, the only "reality", so to speak, from a Buddhist perspective is the reality of dukkha or suffering. The question of the reality of the material world is of no importance.)
pmoriarty 10y ago
"Zen Buddhism and Taoism's idea of "nothingness" is not about inactivity but about keeping the "self" out of activity." I often wonder how much more popular quietism would be if it did not contain the seeds of its own destruction. Quietists would presumably not want to be active politically, socially, or militarily.. thus effectively not opposing any oppression they are likely to receive at the hands of the forces representing the challenged status quo. Maybe in some future utopia/distopia where all needs are taken care of by machines and one is perhaps safe in distant star systems or in VR, quietism could thrive without being driven to extinction by competing, aggressive/active ideologies. Despite phenomena like "engaged Buddhism", Buddhism and other Asian religions such as Hinduism are still accused of quietism, for their turning away from the world and "navel gazing", and for tolerating social injustice because of their inward/spiritual focus, sometime their belief in karma (which some maintain justifies unjust/unequal/exploitative conditions as deserved for actions in a previous life), and their belief that the material world (and thus material/social circumstances) are an illusion.

qntty 10y ago

>First, the author conflates procrastination, idleness and perfectionism, as if they were interchangeable But he distinguishes them later: The drama of procrastination comes from its split nature. Just like the architect from Shiraz, the procrastinator is smitten by the perfect picture of that which is yet to be born; he falls under the spell of all that purity and splendor. What he is beholding is something whole, uncorrupted by time, untainted by the workings of a messed-up world. At the same time, though, the procrastinator is fully aware that all that has to go. No sooner does he get a glimpse of the perfection that precedes actualization than he is doomed to become part of the actualization process himself, to be the one who defaces the ideal and brings into the world a precarious copy, unlike the architect who saves it by burning the plans. So in this view procrastination is not his idealized perfectionism ("burning the plans") or his idealized idleness ("intuiting a cosmic meaninglessness, which comes along with the realization that, with every action, we get only more entangled in the universal farce"). It has a split nature that's the worst of both. Also it's possible that his reference to nothingness doesn't mean sunyata, but "making no karma" by not participating in samsara.

HenryTheHorse 10y ago
Re "samsara", I am sure you know that in the Hindu/Buddhist sense it is more than just the physical samsara, whereas idleness necessarily refers to inaction. By avoiding action and therefore responsibility, one could still be awfully entangled in samsara. (Just ask any developer who's browsing HN or Reddit while struggling to meet a deadline!) That said, I did like your interpretation of "making no karma", even though Buddhism makes it very clear that karma-making occurs even with the skandhas, the "sense-gate" or mental/emotional fabrications.
- qntty 10y ago
  Yes, in the Buddhist view, you accumulate karma no matter what you're doing (even if you're procrastinating something), so long as you have an idea of self. So the only way to "really do nothing" is to free yourself from samsara (not a physical place, but the continuity of craving).

tn13 10y ago

> Nothingness ("Shunyata", in Sanskrit) is not about idleness or vacuum but means something very specific. It refers to the absence of a solid, tangible self (or an ego, if you must use a Western term). Buddhism's core practice is often mis-interpreted as "don't do something, sit there!" but it couldn't be farther from the truth. I think you have got it almost right. The roots of meditation is from Rig-veda's riddle hymn composed by Dhirgatamas (one who stares in infinite darkness). The hymn describes two birds one enjoying eating berries where as other simply looks at it. Shunyata is a concept popularized by Buddhist traditions with a very specific meaning but overall the concept of "do nothing" in meditative traditions of east has nothing to do with literal meaning of doing nothing instead depending on the specific school of meditaiton it differs. Mindfulness/Vipashyana (look inside) involves being alert while not acting at all which actually improves your sensitivity and observance of the surrounding where as Sahajmarga would involve becoming one with the existence while eliminating all thought. It is actually lot of hard work!

orthoganol 10y ago

I always thought 'nothingness' was a central ontological concept in Buddhism, not just a concept as it relates to a 'self'. For Zen Buddhism, deny the substantial character of reality, assert that the only absolute is the void, existentially assume this void, and assert the sameness of the phenomena around you. I imagine something which encourages you to deny your desires must steer you in the direction of inactivity - in as much as desire motivates activity (not biological activity, but 'start a startup' kind of activity). Although I'm aware Western versions have squared it with work place productivity, even used by hard working CEOs at the top, it feels perhaps dishonest to claim "Buddhism" rather than utility for feeling centered (and it certainly is effective there).

HenryTheHorse 10y ago
> deny the substantial character of reality It's a popular belief but neither Zen nor Theravadan Buddhism makes any claims about "Reality". They only talk about the lack of a substantial self. (After all, the only "reality", so to speak, from a Buddhist perspective is the reality of dukkha or suffering. The question of the reality of the material world is of no importance.)

pmoriarty 10y ago

"Zen Buddhism and Taoism's idea of "nothingness" is not about inactivity but about keeping the "self" out of activity." I often wonder how much more popular quietism would be if it did not contain the seeds of its own destruction. Quietists would presumably not want to be active politically, socially, or militarily.. thus effectively not opposing any oppression they are likely to receive at the hands of the forces representing the challenged status quo. Maybe in some future utopia/distopia where all needs are taken care of by machines and one is perhaps safe in distant star systems or in VR, quietism could thrive without being driven to extinction by competing, aggressive/active ideologies. Despite phenomena like "engaged Buddhism", Buddhism and other Asian religions such as Hinduism are still accused of quietism, for their turning away from the world and "navel gazing", and for tolerating social injustice because of their inward/spiritual focus, sometime their belief in karma (which some maintain justifies unjust/unequal/exploitative conditions as deserved for actions in a previous life), and their belief that the material world (and thus material/social circumstances) are an illusion.