This recipe against unhappiness is quite easy, and it has ancient roots. The concept is simple, its logic unassailable, for it is very basic. Yet few people follow it. The others, almost everyone, spend their days at work, at the restaurant, at the bar or at home, arguing about topics they actually know nothing about; matters that are not directly connected to their lives. And they do it with such a zeal, as if they were defending what is dearest to them.
Let's try to make this point clearer.
You come across a theory, a hypothesis, a suspicion of a global nature. Let's say in the geopolitical, financial or social context. Okay, may be that theory is correct. Or maybe not. Can you confirm it or deny it without leaving your sphere of direct control? If the answer is yes, then confirm it or deny it. If the answer is no, I'm sorry, but by insisting on supporting it you are only wasting time and energy, and you are probably making a fool of yourself on top of that.
Let's take an example. Some people claim that “Main Street” doesn’t exist in the city you’re in. That it’s all a set-up. A story artfully created to deceive people. You’re sure you’ve heard about that street before. Well, does it exist? Or does it not? What can you do to dispel any doubts about it? Well, you do the most sensible thing: you look up Main Street on a city map, you find it, you go there and confirm its existence, thus disproving the theory. And you do it while remaining within your sphere of direct control. You didn’t have to look for other people’s opinions, newspaper articles, television programs or YouTube videos. You did it yourself and you are certain of the validity of your conclusion.
Let’s consider a different scenario now. Some people claim that there are strong powers that have devised a financial strategy to enrich themselves and exercise a tight control over the masses at the same time. You are worried, you don’t want to be controlled for the benefit of some greedy millionaires who plan to increase their wealth and social influence at your expense. Usually you stop there, and you let yourself be guided by your intuition, which is nothing more than a tendency to sympathize with certain socio-political factions rather than others. But that’s not okay, that’s not what you did in the Main Street case. You can’t make a decision that could cost you a lot of time, energy and reputation without checking your facts. You have to confirm or deny it. So you take out your phone and carry out a search on the subject. You find various sources: some of them confirm the theory, some deny it. Again, you might go for the the ones that best suit your political inclination, but you would have only moved the problem up a level. You are not operating within your sphere of direct control. You don’t know who edited those sources, and even if you think you know them, you know nothing about their intentions, their weaknesses, their real degree of independence, their personal interests. You have to operate independently, as you did before. You would need to know where these old men gather to plot behind your back. However, it’s not as simple as looking up Main Street on a map. You try various methods, but in the end you realize that you always hit a wall of news spread by someone else. There is no way to confirm or deny the theory while remaining within your sphere of direct control.
So what?
So you have to do something similar to what Gautama Buddha taught two and a half millennia ago. That outstanding man explained in detail how to deal with some of the most treacherous weaknesses of our mind. He did it before the Greeks, the Romans and the Arabs came, before the Renaissance, before the scientific revolution, more than two thousand years before the birth of modern psychiatry. What is it that he said? His teachings are a bit too long to explain, but with all due respect we can summarize them like this: let go! Don’t insist! It is absolutely useless! In fact, it's even harmful!
In a slightly more formal way we can outline some guidelines in three points:
- You must accept the impossibility of reaching a definitive conclusion on the subject (you can neither confirm nor deny the theory while remaining within your sphere of direct control).
- You must therefore accept the futility of seeking a definitive conclusion on the subject (you would be wasting precious resources).
- And of course you have to accept the absurdity of every supposedly definitive conclusion on the subject (because no one can confirm or deny it within their own sphere of direct control).
This approach may seem unsatisfactory, cowardly and careless. Actually it is the only sensible one. What would you think if you saw someone trying to empty the sea a.bucketful at a time? Would you perhaps feel disappointed, cowardly or cynical for not trying to imitate them?
Now, even if the two situations seem totally different to you (and obviously in many respects they are), as far as their usefulness, sharpness and consequences are concerned they are by any means equivalent.
So, whenever you try to defend a position that you can neither confirm nor deny within your sphere of direct control, imagine a guy trying to empty the sea with a bucket. Can you see that guy? Well, that guy is you.
And if you don’t believe me, at least follow Gautama Buddha’s advice: do yourself a favor, leave it alone.
Versione italiana: https://www.fabiopulito.com/2025/03/ricette-per-la-serenita-capitolo-1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment