business, even to the realms of philosophy and the arts, as to seep into our institutions and our hearts and minds. Our systematic deficiency of “why” has many effects, but is best characterized by the type of thoughts and behavior they manifest in the general public. Much can be attributed to a “what”-centered mentality and its tunnel-visioned thinking, from “small” stuff like petty disputes, to large-scale social problems and wars. For instance, a lack of “why” often results in an ultra-legalistic outlook, which might appear intelligent and substantial on the surface, but is, upon closer inspection, rather flawed, in a “pennywise, pound-foolish” way. A society living in such a one-sided, devitalized reality might, say, build the world’s tallest, most magnificent building, but only so people can feel better about themselves. In that world, a sunset is only about the Earth’s rotation, and jokes are only for insulting people, and allegories and parables are taken literally, as to lose their metaphor.
For the “why”-starved, the answer to “Why is the Buddha laughing?” is “Because something is funny.”
But that’s just the start, for the “why’s” effects are seen far and wide. A sense of “why” determines thinking; thinking determines action; action determines world events. So, in the end, a lack of “why” shapes the infrastructure of the seen world, in ways one might not immediately consider. Really, there’s not a single thing that doesn’t somehow hinge on our global grasp of the “whys” of life, for better or worse. Also, understanding the “why” can have other, secondary effects, including that of redefining our “whats.” Again consider the old fallacy of the Flat Earth: when it was proven and accepted that the world is round, not only did this lead to an explosion of new data and knowledge, but it required a complete review of that already accumulated. The same applies to the small-scale, where, for instance, a murder is seen differently once it’s revealed to have been done in self-defense.
Such is the total, all-transforming power of a simple “why,” from forcing us to reconsider the shape of the world beneath our feet, to changing a murder into a defense.
So far, I’ve been describing the “why’s” importance in terms of principle and concept, rather than any sort of real-world, living terms. Therefore, I feel it necessary to list some real-life examples, due to the skin of substance added by sociological factors and the rest of daily life—the “why” in action, if you will. For starters, healthcare: In a society where the doctor’s primary purpose is to prescribe drugs rather than cure disease—we have forgotten the “why.” Work: When it’s assumed that an employee requires incentives of self-advancement to be productive—we have forgotten the “why.” Government: When an elected official’s incentives are the same as any other employee, rather than fulfilling the civic duty of their office—we have forgotten the “why.” When “right” is equated with “won’t get caught” rather than “won’t do harm”—we have forgotten the “why.”
If you were confused by these examples, because they came off to you as wholly normal and acceptable behavior—then, chances are, you’ve fallen in line with a world turned on its head by shortsighted thinking, that which arises when we collectively lose touch with purpose and the big picture, and the worldwide consequences of our local, individual actions.
In the terms of the Hokey Pokey, we’ve forgotten what it’s all about.
Inevitably, this line of inquiry leads to the ultimate “why”: the meaning of life and the universe. Of course, to attempt this particular “why” is far beyond the scope of this essay, so I’ll instead just question that “why’s” implications. What effects might we expect from being unaware of life’s meaning? If lacking a “why” results in distortion, confusion, and a general clumsiness of purpose, what might happen in a world disconnected from the biggest “why” of all? What illusions might result—of ill-will, of futility, of devalue, of a mechanical way of life? In that world, it would be unsurprising to find folks who don’t take much joy in their “whats,” however many they acquire. That’s a world of baseballs without baseball, of pies without filling, of pain without purpose.
But, consider the converse: How good might things be were that meaning restored? If we could just remember the “why” of our being, what might change within the most basic facets of life on Earth? What simple, nourishing joys might we be denying ourselves? What heartbreak might be rectified? How much harder are we making things, due to our “why”-deprived, flat-earth thinking? Might we be surrounded by abundance and beauty but blind to it, due to our focusing purely on the “whats” of the world? Think of it this way: when connected with the great “why” of life, no one would need an incentive to do the right thing, nor would it be necessary to punish the wrong one.
A revival of the ultimate “why” could, I believe, bring about such world-shaking changes. Those and more.
As best as I can tell, we have forgotten the “why” of things, big and small, and it has sucked away our very lifeblood, leaving many of us soulless and adrift as we trudge through an empty, “what”-oriented existence, endlessly seeking fulfillment from the unfulfilling and trying to sustain what cannot be sustained. However, all this could be changed by an adequate dosage of “why”—big improvements resulting from the seemingly smallest knowledge. Such a global sea-change could bring about whole new ways of life and thought, as to forge a new status quo, beginning with the heart of the common man.
Thus rejuvenated, perhaps we could properly answer the question of why the Buddha laughs.
VII. DEFYING APPEARANCES
No one judges books by their covers anymore, right? Hasn’t this wisdom become conventional enough that it’s no longer a concern?
Unfortunately, no. Appearances still hold sway, now as much as ever.
However well-known the dangers of cover-judging, many of us remain hung up on the obvious, the ostensible, and the seems-to-be. Furthermore, we are equally unreceptive to the deeper reality which lies behind these shallow exteriors. So steeped are we in appearances, our very psychology has come to reflect this hollow view of the world, as to shape even our deepest, most fundamental thoughts and perceptions. Worse, this mentality is so popular and inclusive, it seems normal, simply because there is so rarely an alternative to contrast it. In a world where acting on appearances is the status quo, it’s easy to get swept up in the illusion that this is healthy behavior.
The consequences are many—confusion, for starters. Being so entangled in appearance-centered thinking, we are at risk of believing that no such thinking is happening—so long as it appears otherwise. Ironic, no? It’s a classic case of self-reinforcing behavior: if appearance is our guiding force, and it appears we aren’t going on appearances, then we might really believe we aren’t going on appearances, and so the whole mess goes on. Maybe we know not to judge books by their covers, but only when it appears that we’re doing so. So long as appearances of sound judgment are maintained, the cover-judging continues.
Take note: this last point wasn’t an exaggeration. It may sound absurd, that we could be so wrapped up in appearances that we’ll believe we aren’t wrapped up in appearances. After all, aren’t we too civilized and educated to be so double-minded? Unfortunately, this is, once again, not the case, for intelligence, class, and education have little bearing on subscribing to appearances (a good example of appearance-centered thinking in itself). When it comes to being misled by appearances, even the best of us are at risk, because it’s a basic flaw possessed by most everyone.
Why? Because it’s all perception.
A friend of mine is fond of a saying: “Life is perception.” I am inclined to agree, for perception is, I believe, the dominant force within all humanity. Defined as the unique way that someone sees the world, a person’s perception is, really, the person themselves, being tailored from their environment, life experience, and anything else that might have bearing on their psychology. So, when one perceives the outside world, they are as much a part of that perception as the actual objects and people being perceived; for
this reason, one’s perception governs how they see themselves, along with all external and internal events. And, because no two perceptions are alike, we can bear witness to the exact same world yet see it differently, as to inhabit separate worlds entirely. Though, it must be understood: for the individual, their personal perception of the world might not feel like a mere perception at all, but instead, simply, as reality—not a world, but the world. Which makes an important point: If we aren’t careful, our subjective, personal perceptions can seem objective and universal, due to the smoke-and-mirrors of the mind.
Sometimes a cigar just isn’t a cigar, you could say.
In a word, perception is fallible. And that’s why our thinking is so susceptible to appearances: because our thoughts are so dependent on these fallible perceptions. Due to mental distortion, a perception of a thing does not require basis in the actual reality of that thing, and that opens the door to many potential problems and discrepancies. What if a meaningless gesture is perceived as a vulgar insult? What if a stray compliment is perceived as a romantic signal? What if a red light is perceived as green? Or, what if acting upon