Happiness: a physician/biologist looks at life

by Joseph N. Abraham, M.D.
self-published, 2000
141 pp including bibliography
reviewed by Vladimir K., July, 2005

“If you’re so smart, why aren’t you happy?”

With this facetious question found on the inside fly-leaf of Dr Abraham’s book, another book on how to find happiness and satisfaction in life begins. It seems lately that we’ve been swamped with self-help books under the assumption that society is somehow “unhappy” or even sick. If Dr Abraham can throw out a facetious question to begin, perhaps I can do likewise: If there are so many self-help books guiding us to a better life, why are we so (supposedly) unhappy? It would appear that these books have absolutely no effect on people. Dozens, if not hundreds, are published yearly, all telling us that we’re an unhappy miserable lot and that this book can help us find the road to happiness and well-being. Is it possible that there is an inverse ratio going on here: the more books on happiness and spiritual well-being that are published, the more miserable we all become? O.K., so that’s facile as well and I’m sure many of the authors of these books are well-intentioned people who mean to do well by sharing their vision of what makes a person a better person (whatever that means) and drag us out of our misery. Of course, some are out and out charlatans and greedy sons-of-bitches but Dr Abraham is not one of those; I think he means well.

The problem I have with these books is the initial premise: we are an unhappy lot and we’re all getting unhappier the richer we become. Now, happiness is not something that one can study under a microscope like a disease or something. You can’t spot little happiness bugs running around in a body and count them up and say, “This person doesn’t have many happiness bugs and therefore is miserable.” Really, the only way to find out if someone is happy or unhappy is to ask them. A standard question posed by social scientists and lately by more and more economists is, “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days -- would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?”. This question was posed by the General Social Surveys of the United States. Between 1988 and 2000 the results have been fairly static: 58% said they were pretty happy, 30% were very happy and only 12% said they were not too happy. (cited in Blanchflower and Oswald, 2003:5) Of course survey results will vary according to how skillfully the survey is done, the size of the database, and a host of other factors. In another survey where essentially the same question was asked world-wide but the results were calculated the via the following formula: the percentage of people who rated themselves as either "quite happy" or "very happy" minus the percentage of people who rated themselves as either "not very happy" or "not at all happy", (see Nationmaster.com) we find that the world is a pretty happy place, all in all. Using this formula, the United States came in 13th with a score of 84%. The top five countries— Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Australia—had scores of 90% or over. Of the 50 countries in the survey, 28 had over 50% of the population as happy (Chile just made it at 52% while China missed out at 49%) with the rest below 50%, most of whom are eastern European countries such as Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, with the most miserable population being Bulgaria with a “happiness score” of -24%. But Bulgars have never been noted for their joi de vivre. The point is, where do we get the impression that most of us are unhappy when the statistics say exactly the opposite?

The first chapter in Abraham’s book attempts a quasi-Buddhist interpretation of “all is illusion”, that we live in an unreal universe and it’s all in our heads: “The brain…constructs illusions—approximating reality, but illusions nevertheless…all of our experiences are illusions”. (p7) This construct of the brain is, according to Abrahams, essential for survival but also the cause of much of our suffering. But to explain pain as a nerve impulse sent to the brain for interpretation, or vision as a function of the visual cortex located in the posterior portion of the brain, really doesn’t help much and this is one of the weakness of the book: too much is explained via the “human as animal” model. We eat, we shit and we fuck, pretty well the same as any other animal on earth. This is well-known and accepted by most educated people. The question is, does any of this make us happy? Well, actually it does. Recent work in the field of “happiness study” indicates that “Sex is strongly and positively associated with happiness” and that it has a disproportionably positive effect on happiness with the highly educated. (Blanchflower and Oswald, 2003:9-10) In other words, the more educated you are, the more important role sex has in making you happy. Abraham’s thesis regarding sex is that the urge is there but the desire to procreate (supposedly the source of the human sex urge) isn’t and this leads to unhappiness and confusion and a whole host of problems. The basis for this thesis is that, biologically speaking, sex is for procreation and without procreation it is meaningless and, in Abraham’s view, “we have animal instincts that drive us to do things that no longer make sense”. (p24) This seems like a very Catholic view of the role of sex in individuals and in 21 st Century societies. Abraham does point out that the choice to procreate or not is culturally based and the animal within us clashes with the ‘human’ side of our nature leading to confusion and contradictions. The truth, though, is regardless of what our genes tell us, sex does make us happy and therefore whether we procreate or not isn’t the point. It seems whether we fuck or not is where it’s at when discussing the correlation of sex and happiness. As Blanchflower and Oswald say, “The more sex, the happier the person.” (p7)

Abraham next goes on to discuss money, power and fame (MPF, as he puts it) and its correlation to happiness. Needless to say, these three are not the road to happiness. One of the central theses of the book is that “those who seek after MPF, for MPF itself, are misguided, unfortunate people, who make inappropriate role models for the rest of us.” (p36) Abraham is careful to point out that he is criticizing those for whom MPF is a goal in and of itself, those who devote their lives to MPF. There are, of course, rich, powerful and famous people who are just as happy as the rest of us. The old adage that money doesn’t buy happiness is gradually being, if not disproved, at least adjusted. What appears to be emerging is that money (or more properly ‘wealth’, the total accumulated assets a person has) does have an impact on reported levels of happiness and well-being. One theory regarding money and happiness is that what is important is not how much money one has but how much money one has relative to others around him/her. In other words, relative wealth is what seems to count in the happiness stakes. No one argues that the mindless pursuit of money is poisonous to happiness or that personal relationships are more important to happiness than money. But the role of money, wealth, has perhaps been underestimated and needs to be investigated further (see Headey, Muffels and Wooden, 2004). Money can’t buy happiness but neither can poverty.

So, what has all this got to do with Zen Buddhism? Joseph Abraham sent me this book to review on the basis that it contains references to Buddhism and Zen so perhaps I should take a look at this aspect of the work. While there is no real definition of what happiness is, Abraham states that “to be totally absorbed in the present, to be one with the present experience, is to be happy.” (p 61) A statement such as this would be familiar to any Zen student. To illustrate his point, Abraham refers to Eugen Herrigel’s Zen in the Art of Archery, where Herrigel relates the story of the Zen master aiming at a target which Herrigel couldn’t even see in the dark and hitting the dead centre with the first arrow and then splitting that arrow with the second arrow, the point being not the skill of the archer but the ability of the Zen master to be at “one with everything”. (p60) The trouble with this story is that it is unlikely to have happened the way Herrigel relates it. According to Associate Professor Yamada Shoji of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies, this is an extremely rare event for even the most skillful archer. Furthermore, “One must also note that practitioners of kyðjutsu in Japan share the common understanding that shattering the nock of one’s own arrow is a failure of which one should be ashamed, since the archer thereby damages his own equipment.” (Shoji, 2001:17) Herrigel totally misunderstood what had happened. Herrigel’s teacher, Awa Kenzo never spoke about the incident to any but one or two of his most senior disciples such as Anzawa Heijirõ, who asked about the incident and reported that Awa said it was a “coincidence” and that “I had no special intention to demonstrate such a thing.” (ibid, p 18) On top of being just a lucky shot (if it happened at all), Awa was not a Zen master at all. Indeed, he never studied or practiced Zen Buddhism and in fact had little time for Zen. Awa had developed his own quasi-religion of “archery as religion” after a mystical experience which had nothing to do with Zen Buddhism. Because he became a fanatic about his experience, he was essentially drummed out of the society of archers and was viewed as something of a nut case. The story illustrates the dangers of taking Zen myths as fact. However, Herrigel’s book, first published in 1948 and based on a 1936 essay, is still a best seller and even in Japan it has a following that believes that archery is a path to Zen (which is what Herrigel believed when he was searching for a Zen master).

Later in the book, Abraham makes some extraordinary statements about the Zen swordsman as becoming a “great life-giver” by slaying his opponent. He claims: “By killing his opponents, the swordmaster brings that realization [an awareness of death] and—oddly—that joy to them and himself, and to all Zen swordsmen.” (p137) This is an appalling misunderstanding of Zen Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha. In the same passage he states, “the Zen swordmaster recognizes the sacredness of life, even as he kills his opponent.” The contradictions in the statement are self-evident. This idea of the Zen swordmaster as some sort of Zen master has been promoted in the West by the likes of D.T. Suzuki and accepted unquestioningly by many Western Zen teachers. It is time for this to stop. The Buddha never condoned killing under any circumstances. To use the Buddha’s teachings to justify killing is a perversion of the Buddha’s great compassionate teachings. (For more on this topic, see the book reviews of Brian Victoria’s Zen at War)

Scattered periodically throughout his book, Abraham uses term “Zen mind, beginner’s mind” to highlight a point. For example, he relates the story from the movie Karate Kid of how the master tries to catch a fly with chopsticks and fails but when the novice kid tries, he catches it on his first try. Zen mind, beginner’s mind. (p59) It appears that Abraham uses ”beginner’s mind” as a term to mean a total focus upon the present with no expectation of success or failure: “The beginner has no expectation other than the expectation of a new experience, and a willingness to learn.” (p 119) The term was popularized by Shunryu Suzuki’s book of the same name. Beginner’s mind or shoshin was a term often used by Dogen Zenji. Although Abraham’s understanding of beginner’s mind is not incorrect as far as it goes, it is too simplistic and limited. In Bendowa (On the Endeavor of the Way), Dogen uses beginner’s mind to teach that practice and realization are not separate: “Because practice of the present moment is practice-realization, the practice of beginner’s mind is itself the entire original realization.” (Tanahashi,1988:151) In Gakudo Yoshin-shu (Guidelines for Studying the Way) Dogen advocates zazen which “severs the root of thinking and blocks access to the road of intellectual understanding” as the method of arousing “true beginner’s mind” (ibid, p 42); that is, a non-thinking mind which neither chases nor rejects the endless thoughts in zazen. Suzuki used the term to designate a mind that is empty, ready and open for anything, a boundless mind of many possibilities. Importantly, he also saw it as a compassionate mind: “When our mind is compassionate, it is boundless.” (Suzuki, 1981:22) Both masters used the term in the context of practice of zazen, as a pedagogical device. And I think this is the point Abraham overlooks about beginner’s mind. He relates the story of people under hypnosis being able to do extraordinary acts that they did not practice beforehand and by becoming “one with the tasks, the very first time they try,” they succeed. (p61) As any Zen student knows, practice (zazen) is endless.

As for the term “Zen mind”, it is so fraught with danger that one is best to never utter it all! I quite like Richard Baker’s description in the Introduction to Suzuki’s Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind: “Zen mind is one of those enigmatic phrases used by Zen teachers to make you notice yourself, to go beyond the words and wonder what your own mind and being are.” (Suzuki, 1981:13) Suzuki saw it as “big, big mind…universal mind…your true mind” (ibid, p 136); a mind which is always there but which you do not know. Whatever we say or don’t say about “Zen mind”, it is not some mystical, extraordinary mind, which seems to be the way Abraham uses it.

I don’t wish to be too critical of Abraham’s efforts. Although it is not the type of book I would normally read or review on this site, he did kindly send it to me and I think he makes some good points here and there throughout the book. I suppose success for a book such as this is how much of it resonates with the reader’s life and I must confess there were a couple of points he made that I recognized and needed reminding of. Other readers will probably find other points more relevant than the ones I found. The book is written in a breezy, anecdotal style and could be read in a few hours. I was, however, somewhat disturbed by the ego of the author shining through. The opening sentence, in the Introduction, is: “I’m no god, or even a guru.” Well, no, but what made you think anyone would think you were? On page 47 he criticizes how a doctor's white coat is now a badge of status, an example of "a way for people to immediately recognize where one stands in the pecking order" but isn't putting the letters M.D. after a name exactly that, an attempt to gain status? And the inside dust cover photo looks suspiciously like Dr Abraham in lab coat (it's a rather poor photo so I may well be mistaken). I was also disturbed by the approval shown towards killing by so-called Zen swordmasters. It appears the author either hasn’t thought through the implications of his statements or he approves of killing fellow human beings. But he does admit to killing animals for pleasure and aspires to driving the ecological and social disaster that is an SUV so perhaps it is the latter of the two. I hope not. I do hope that should there be a future edition of this book he would consider removing the section on swordmasters as this does not reflect the Buddha way and it is long overdue that we stop this myth from being perpetrated.

Note: the book is available from Books XYZ, a non-profit organisation that dontates money for public education in the United States.