Bhutan Happiness Index: Buddhist Country Fails On Its 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH)

[ellisonz]

Posted: 03/ 6/2012 6:13 pm
By Vishal Arora
Religion News Service

THIMPHU, Bhutan (RNS) In a country that prides itself on measuring quality of life in terms of "Gross National Happiness," this small Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas seems to have a problem: at least half its citizens aren't happy, according to its own measurements.

While more than 90 percent of the 7,142 respondents said they were "happy" in a recent government survey, only 49 percent of people fit the official definition of total happiness by meeting at least six of the survey's nine criteria.

Bhutan's fourth king, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, coined the phrase GNH in 1972 on the belief that people's happiness did not depend on the nation's economic wealth alone.

GNH indicators -- as opposed to more traditional measures like a nation's gross domestic product based on economic activity -- recognize nine components of happiness: psychological well-being, ecology, health, education, culture, living standards, time use, community vitality and good governance.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/bhutan-happiness-index-gnh-gross-national-happiness_n_1324918.html

I wish we did this in America and took it seriously.

[Lost-in-FL]

1. Maybe they are not real Buddhists.

[YankeyMCC]

2. Poor choice of words in headline I think

The fact that the Bhutan government is using this as a measure of progress rather than GDP now they KNOW there are some real problems and what is causing them and thus can try to make it better. That sounds like success to me.

[Newest Reality]

3. When wealth is

not equated with the symbol of money, then a happiness index is closer to what wealth implies in that sense. Quality and appreciation trump quantity and that would be encouraged.

It was mentioned in the article that some residents are "resigned to their fate" and this is due to their belief in karma. Well, Buddhism, to me, is not a one size-fits-all method. Some people might find the tendency to be resigned to "fate" as comforting and others could find it restricting and one-sided, as deterministic and uninspiring, maybe even depressing.

My understanding of what the Buddha taught does not necessarily frame karma as fate. Karma, primarily, means action, or what you do in the present and it relates to your habitual conditioning in the sense of the idea of the past. For the Western mind, this can be useful in a psychological sense. The basal ganglion store unconscious, repeatable patterns, (driving, tying a shoe, typing, etc.) that relieve surface consciousness of the need for attention on details. Imagine the effort and time involved in having to go through every action and behavior step-by-step. Imagine picking out each word as you have a conversation or running your own personality by micro-managing each aspect of how you behave. You would burn yourself up and probably breakdown.

The garden analogy seems to sum it up best. Consciousness is considered the field, karma is the seeds and desire is the moisture. The implication is that karma will provide the tendencies--cues or triggers--that are planted in the field. Desire for an outcome, (the moisture) represents the motivation and reward. You water the seeds and bring them to fruition this way. This is the framework of endless becoming and it proves to be stressful, (for both good and bad outcomes) and ultimately unsatisfying. Being tied to this becoming is about automatic behaviors and per-programmed reactions and thought/feelings, as well as the outcomes of behaviors and how they are reinforced. The past and future of it, (time-based) is merely a reference point.

Karma, in this sense, is more like a Quantum affair that provides a range of probabilities that are weighted, and hence, karma is not fate. Some behaviors and reactions are strong, powerful and can be irresistible, hence they repeat. This applies to thoughts/emotions evoked by circumstances, (internal and external) and the reaction can be enjoyable or miserable or null. One person can be nonplussed by an event while another experiences deep sorrow or reacts violently.

One always experiences one's karma in the immediate present. One of the antidotes is mindfulness, (paying direct attention continuously) and a result can be that the karma burns itself up for lack of reinforcement and the confusion of involvement; you no longer follow it around. Then, one does not become a dull cow chewing cud in the field, but rather discovers self-arising Wisdom that is an aspect of our True Nature. One responds spontaneously to situations without calculations, strategies and with desire as a prime motivator. Freedom is to largely function from the habit energy patterns of karma.

That is freedom versus resignation to fate. The concept of karma, taken in one way becomes a reinforcement for one's bondage and in another way it provides a dynamic means for liberation. This is duality after all, so even while we can point to the non-dual all concepts are subject to the dance.

[ellisonz]

4. Is it not an expedient mean though in its purpose?

I mean as much as it may be deterministic in assessing happiness, the point is to alleviate suffering by providing an assessment mean for government. I don't think they suppose to be able to control the national karma, but rather to be mindful of suffering.

I would agree with YankeeMCC that the headline is more dualistic than the actual practice. There may be some meaning lost in translation.

[Newest Reality]

5. You bet!

A happiness index can be a very expedient way to reflect the suffering and happiness of a society.

When we relate it to our culture and the fixation on production and finance as indicators, the contrast can be stark and useful as a means.

I'm wondering what other people here who are interested in Buddhism or practicing think about hapiness.

It may be interesting and fruitful to discuss just what happiness means or is for various folks. Where does it come from and how available is it?

[ellisonz]

6. That certaintly would be a good topic for discussion. n/t

[white_wolf]

7. I think the problems might stem from more worldy issues rather than relgious ones.

I'm not expert on Bhutan, but is it a true monarchy or one in name only like England? If it is an a pure monarchy, then I could see how people wouldn't be happy with that. As I read the article a something came up that troubles me. The State seems to be using Buddhism as a means to keep the people happy without addressing their concerns. The article mentions people being resigned to their fate due to karma. This seems to be a twisting of Buddhism and more in line with Hinduism. Karma isn't fate, it isn't something that can't be avoided. One of the points Buddha made is that we are responsible for our lives, we aren't locked into a fate at birth like the Hindu Caste system. I think the problems here are economic and political rather than spiritual.

[ellisonz]

8. Bhutan is a constitutional monarchy.

But not quite alike England's in conception or execution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Bhutan - they've been making a pretty steady democratic march over the last decade or so. This is colored by an ethnic clash between the Bhutanese Ngalop culture and the Lhotshampa who are of Nepali origin. One might say Bhutan is culturally exclusionary, but at the same time, considering the dynamics of the region they believe it to be warranted. I'm not sure the current king Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck would have made the same decision, but now that it has happened and there has been migration out of Bhutan, he's not about to roll back the cultural protections. The Bhutanese Kingdom does not want to be forced into the 21st century, they want to join it on their own terms and there is a certain respectability to that considering the assimilating nature of globalization.

Bhutan certainly does have economic problems and some might suppose political problems, but that has to be weighed with the reality that Buddhism is the traditional religion, monarchy is the traditional form of government, and applying Western notions regarding these things is in a very real way cultural imperialism. Moreover, it's not like we're talking about the Khmer Rouge here - no one is being compelled by force to remain in Bhutan.

The codification of Bhutanese culture traces its roots directly back to Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyel, the Tibetan lama and military leader who unified Bhutan as a nation state in the 17th century. The Shabdrung sought to unify the country not only politically but culturally as well. He established the Driglam Namzha, guidelines for architecture, festivals, and public dress and behavior. These guidelines were intentionally codified to encourage the emergence of a distinctive Bhutanese identity.

During the six 5-year plans for Bhutan's planned developing starting from the 1960s, authorities seemed to take the survival for Bhutan's tradition and culture for granted. During that period of rapid development a significant part of Bhutan's population, principally the youth, were exposed overnight to outside ideas, cultures, and influences. This period also saw a marked increase in immigrants from Nepal and India, most of whom settled in the south among the Lhotshampa.

By the 1980s, the government felt it necessary to safeguard the dominant Ngalop culture. In 1989 the government elevated the status of the Driglam Namzha dress code from recommended to mandatory. Afterward, all citizens were required to observe the dress code (the gho and kira) in public during business hours. This decree was resented by the Hindu Lhotshampa in the southern lowlands who voiced complaints about being forced to wear the clothing of the Ngalop.[10][11] This was accompanied by regulations restricting employment and educational opportunities for residents who were not of full Bhutanese descent.[citation needed] However, the government finds it difficult to relent because it perceives a threat to tradition demographically and culturally. As a result of ethnic tensions, there were an estimated 107,000[12] refugees and asylum seekers, mostly Lhotshampa, in refugee camps in Nepal in 2008. By January 2010, an estimated 90,078[13] remained persons of concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Bhutan

Bhutan is very progressive economically:

Worker rights

Bhutanese labor law includes mandatory workman's compensation, pensions, wages and hours including overtime; universal rules on leave, including maternity and nursing leave; and comprehensive provisions on employment contracts and related rights and remedies. The law explicitly places the financial burden of ensuring occupational health and safety on the employer, and requires accident and safety reporting.[5]

Bhutanese labor law also permits the formation of workers' associations by any group of 12 or more workers under a legal work contract. These labor associations are permitted to engage in collective bargaining, and to be represented by a non-management employee of their ranks. In the event of an unresolvable dispute, the Chief Labour Administrator is empowered to intervene as conciliator. Settlement may otherwise be reached by resorting to the Royal Court of Justice.[5]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Bhutan#Public_law

I think most Bhutanese are generally happy with the lives they live and do not wish to see a foreign model applied to their state.

[white_wolf]

9. First of all, let me make it clear that I don't support any form of imperalism to deal with...

these problems. I hope I didn't give that impression. I don't think any country should impose their model on another. I don't have a problem with Buddhism, I am a Buddhist. I may have read the article wrong, but it seemed to imply that Buddhism alone could solve the problems of this country, I don't agree with that. However, it is up to the people of Bhutan to make this decision for themselves and I oppose any imperialist actions. To be honest, your article has me worried China might try to pull another Tibet in the name of "anti-imperialism." Very ironic, considering China is as imperialist as they come.

[ellisonz]

10. I don't think they expect to solve the problems...

...they expect to do the best they can by the people, and assuredly they believe Buddhism does have a role in that. They are worried more about globalization obliterating their culture than China per say, but having lived in Hawaii, I can assure you cultural imperialism is nothing be sneezed at.

Aloha.

[white_wolf]

11. I've been to Hawaii and read up on its history.

The loss of culture there is really horrible and I can't say I blame the native people for still being angry over it.

[ellisonz]

12. The debate is always kind of whether...

...it's okay if it's on the native cultures terms, which some argue is what occurred, and could be argued regarding a place like Bhutan. When you're talking about monarchy though, you are talking about top-down decision-making, and so in Hawaii the decision to say convert to Christianity was not made by the people, but by Queen Kaahumanu who believed the missionaries had cured her of disease. Cultural history so often changes most dramatically from one generation to another, that for Bhutan to take such steps and to try and protect their traditional culture, to which Buddhism is central, should be viewed as a noble thing. I'm sure those who object to the protections such as the Lhotshampa are not happy with the decision, but really, the choice was not theirs to make. Just consider the fate of Sikkim; there has to be some interest in giving the weak nations of the Earth extra consideration in self-determination.

Good night to you white_wolf!