把每一天都當最後一天活?
我有一些學佛的朋友,沒一個身材好的。大多偏瘦,少數又軟又胖。沒人願意健身。
我知道他們會說:“一切無常流轉,今日六塊腹肌,明日黃土一堆,何必呢?”
理論上,是自洽的。
反正要死,還有什麼好執著的?確實,一切都在變化,但並沒有那麼劇烈。東方哲學誇大變化的烈度,以營造幻滅感,好用這幻滅感來破除執著。但隨後,就像病人對藥物上癮一樣,破除對外物的執著後,人們又對這幻滅感執著。
其實,從概率上講,明日大概率是不會死的。
深受東方哲學影響的Steve Jobs,在2005年斯坦福演講時說:
For the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?”
過去33年,每天早晨我都對著鏡子問自己:“如果今天是我生命的最後一天,我會做我今天要做的事情嗎?”
有段時間,很多人都引用這話,很時髦。
我問過自己這個問題,答案卻沒那麼漂亮:
如果今天是我生命的最後一天,我不會早起鍛煉的,反正明天要死;
如果今天是我生命的最後一天,我不會送小孩上學,反正明天要死;
如果今天是我生命的最後一天,我不會勉力學習、不會工作、不會寫這文章……反正明天要死;
如果明天要死,一切長遠規劃都失去意義,人只能及時行樂。
當然了,如果你今天很煩,想“明天可能就死”,吸一口這東方哲學的幻滅大麻,瞬間就釋然了。
然而,人們會對一切暫時幫他們逃避現實挑戰的東西上癮,這幻滅感的致癮性就很強。
很顯然,“明天可能要死”的反面,是明天可能還活著。
更極端的是,不僅明天活著,還會活很久,蒙福的話,和聖經說的一樣,子孫不計其數,成為大國。而且,地上的壽命完了,靈魂去另一個世界還活著。
東方哲學為了消解現實帶來的痛感,以加速播放的方式扭曲時間,剛出生就說要死,把時間壓縮了,以營造幻滅感。它的對立面,是西方宗教對未來和來世的期許,把時間拉長。
在舊約中,最初造的一些人,天然就有獻祭的想法。今天打到了一頭鹿,吃一半,獻祭一半,為了日後得獎賞。另一族的人,打到一頭鹿,全都吃了,沒有獻祭。
獻祭的,是神所喜悅的,活了下來,還子孫繁多。沒有獻祭的,很快就滅絕了。
即使是把聖經當寓言讀的無神論者也明白,那些甘願犧牲當下愉悅(半頭鹿),為了長遠回報而延遲滿足的族類,最後活了下來。而只顧眼前、不管明天、認為“明天可能就死”的族類,今朝有酒今朝醉,把鹿全吃了,不為未來準備,最後沒能活下來。
很顯然,延遲滿足,建立在對未來的預期上。如果明天就死,就沒有未來可言,何不當即享受?如果明天還活,就掃除了幻滅感,得為明天籌備,延遲滿足。
我們可以發現,現代文明比較成功的國家,幾乎都是基督教國家,他們的延遲享受建立在這一時間感知上:今天我活著、明天我依然活、哪怕死了、靈魂還活著。
所以,歐洲有很多教堂建了幾百年。對著永生,幾百年算什麼?
反之,如果總想著明天就死,恐怕廁所都懶得沖了,還建什麼聖殿?
所以,我的佛教朋友從不健身,因為他說明天可能就死。十年前,他就說明天會死,但至今還活著。這種明天就會死的心法,讓他在過去十年,什麼都沒有建立。
所以,每天起床,我都看著鏡子問自己,如果今天是最後一天——不,不,我不會看著鏡子和自己說話,這太gay了。
把每一天都當最後一天活?不,不,今天明明不是最後一天。把每一天當每一天活就好了。
今天我真真切切地活著,明天我還是活的,後天我還活著,很久之後,我可能還活著。
有人向著速死而生,有人想著永生而活,人各不同,選你的活法吧。
#Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov issues statement on his detainent in Paris France:
"Last month I got interviewed by police for 4 days after arriving in Paris. I was told I may be personally responsible for other people’s illegal use of Telegram, because the French authorities didn’t receive responses from Telegram.
This was surprising for several reasons:
1. Telegram has an official representative in the EU that accepts and replies to EU requests. Its email address has been publicly available for anyone in the EU who googles “Telegram EU address for law enforcement”.
2. The French authorities had numerous ways to reach me to request assistance. As a French citizen, I was a frequent guest at the French consulate in Dubai. A while ago, when asked, I personally helped them establish a hotline with Telegram to deal with the threat of terrorism in France.
3. If a country is unhappy with an internet service, the established practice is to start a legal action against the service itself. Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach. Building technology is hard enough as it is. No innovator will ever build new tools if they know they can be personally held responsible for potential abuse of those tools.
Establishing the right balance between privacy and security is not easy. You have to reconcile privacy laws with law enforcement requirements, and local laws with EU laws. You have to take into account technological limitations. As a platform, you want your processes to be consistent globally, while also ensuring they are not abused in countries with weak rule of law. We’ve been committed to engaging with regulators to find the right balance. Yes, we stand by our principles: our experience is shaped by our mission to protect our users in authoritarian regimes. But we’ve always been open to dialogue.
Sometimes we can’t agree with a country’s regulator on the right balance between privacy and security. In those cases, we are ready to leave that country. We've done it many times. When Russia demanded we hand over “encryption keys” to enable surveillance, we refused — and Telegram got banned in Russia. When Iran demanded we block channels of peaceful protesters, we refused — and Telegram got banned in Iran. We are prepared to leave markets that aren’t compatible with our principles, because we are not doing this for money. We are driven by the intention to bring good and defend the basic rights of people, particularly in places where these rights are violated.
All of that does not mean Telegram is perfect. Even the fact that authorities could be confused by where to send requests is something that we should improve. But the claims in some media that Telegram is some sort of anarchic paradise are absolutely untrue. We take down millions of harmful posts and channels every day. We publish daily transparency reports (like this or this ). We have direct hotlines with NGOs to process urgent moderation requests faster.
However, we hear voices saying that it’s not enough. Telegram’s abrupt increase in user count to 950M caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform. That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard. We’ve already started that process internally, and I will share more details on our progress with you very soon.
I hope that the events of August will result in making Telegram — and the social networking industry as a whole — safer and stronger. Thanks again for your love and memes"