3 ms·

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

For as prolific as he is, the Dalai Lama doesn't pop up on my radar much. But here he is in the NY Times opinion pages sharing monism. This speaks to a broader human truth: We all need to be needed. There's an old but relevant perspective on life. We value ourselves by how much we can contribute to the lives of others. Still though, I'm left wondering, what combination of forces summed up to this particular writing crossing my path? Leaders need to recognize that a compassionate society must create a wealth of opportunities for meaningful work Oh, there it is. A message about the importance interpersonal relationships to self worth is co-opted and reduced to nothing more than calling on the government to make sure everyone is feeding their 40 hours into the system.

detaro 10y ago
"Feeding their 40 hours into the system" is the opposite of "meaningful work".
petra 10y ago
>> society must create a wealth of opportunities for meaningful work You could interpret this line in different ways. One is your interpretation. Another one would be: Currently, people need work to feed themselves. Why not make thier job meaningful(and good for the human spirit), instead of, say the work at the factory(meaningless and negative for the human spirit), which there are many like it ? In fact , this could be an interesting use of automation. Or another way: many people do benefit from a good structure in their lives, not everybody is a self motivated entrepreneur or software developer like found here . Why not, together, think of such structures ?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
komali2 10y ago
I don't understand how "meaningful work," when the Dalai Lama says it, means "40 hours into the system." My understanding of Buddhism is "meaningful work" or "meaning" can be slaving away 60 hours a week at your own company, sitting on concrete tinkering away at a motorcycle, or even living on a mountain shaving your head and relinquishing all possessions. The idea is to "find meaning," that is, only do things that for you are important and for you give you a sense of purpose.
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  I don't understand how "meaningful work," when the Dalai Lama says it, means "40 hours into the system." Look to the paragraph where people outside the workforce are implied to feel superfluous. Perhaps the people outside the workforce are the most self-actualized of us all. But that possibility is ignored, both in the op-ed and by the reader. Not even the idea that they have the opportunity to be. I'm going to butcher the sentence I quoted earlier. Perhaps you think it changes the meaning, perhaps not. That's not the point, see below... "Leaders [] must create [] opportunities for [] work" My point is, it's a well-worn political trope to call on leaders to increase employment opportunities. If that wasn't the point, why use language that is so similar, or at least could be confused for it. Why not call on leaders to segue our society to one where people can focus on meaningful work that typical job time commitments get in the way of?
- mping 10y ago
  This is a common misconception in my line of understanding of Buddhism. From how I see it, there's not even a "me" or "you", maybe there's a "I am you; you are me", or "nothing at all", depending on the line you may follow. For me, Buddhism teaches about selflessness, not stuff like carpe diem or find meaning of live or whatever; also teaches about the dangers of dying and being reborn/transmigrate in a much worse state, so we should quickly get out of this cycle of suffering. If you are sharp (in terms of Budddhism) you will want to fix this ASAP. If you are not so sharp, they will have to use expedients to slowly show you whats the proper path to happiness - for example showing that clinging to stuff doesn't bring lasting happiness. Getting out ot our own ignorance requires real effort, not just reading and making assumptions from the comfort of our views.

detaro 10y ago

"Feeding their 40 hours into the system" is the opposite of "meaningful work".

petra 10y ago

>> society must create a wealth of opportunities for meaningful work You could interpret this line in different ways. One is your interpretation. Another one would be: Currently, people need work to feed themselves. Why not make thier job meaningful(and good for the human spirit), instead of, say the work at the factory(meaningless and negative for the human spirit), which there are many like it ? In fact , this could be an interesting use of automation. Or another way: many people do benefit from a good structure in their lives, not everybody is a self motivated entrepreneur or software developer like found here . Why not, together, think of such structures ?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

komali2 10y ago

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

forgottenpass 10y ago
I don't understand how "meaningful work," when the Dalai Lama says it, means "40 hours into the system." Look to the paragraph where people outside the workforce are implied to feel superfluous. Perhaps the people outside the workforce are the most self-actualized of us all. But that possibility is ignored, both in the op-ed and by the reader. Not even the idea that they have the opportunity to be. I'm going to butcher the sentence I quoted earlier. Perhaps you think it changes the meaning, perhaps not. That's not the point, see below... "Leaders [] must create [] opportunities for [] work" My point is, it's a well-worn political trope to call on leaders to increase employment opportunities. If that wasn't the point, why use language that is so similar, or at least could be confused for it. Why not call on leaders to segue our society to one where people can focus on meaningful work that typical job time commitments get in the way of?
mping 10y ago
This is a common misconception in my line of understanding of Buddhism. From how I see it, there's not even a "me" or "you", maybe there's a "I am you; you are me", or "nothing at all", depending on the line you may follow. For me, Buddhism teaches about selflessness, not stuff like carpe diem or find meaning of live or whatever; also teaches about the dangers of dying and being reborn/transmigrate in a much worse state, so we should quickly get out of this cycle of suffering. If you are sharp (in terms of Budddhism) you will want to fix this ASAP. If you are not so sharp, they will have to use expedients to slowly show you whats the proper path to happiness - for example showing that clinging to stuff doesn't bring lasting happiness. Getting out ot our own ignorance requires real effort, not just reading and making assumptions from the comfort of our views.