Kindle Unlimited Reads discussion

Just want to share a bit of thought on an interesting book recommended to me by a couple of investor friends of mine, which I just saw was also included in Kindle Unlimited: How to Be Happy: The Wisdom to Attain Happiness and Success by Constructing an Invincible Mind.

When I saw the subject of this book on how to attain happiness and success, I thought this guy was joking - that's too big a subject to be covered in a little book of 80 pages or something. So I just had a look through the free preview of this book first:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Happy-Happ...

Turns out the author (a successful international firm lawyer it seems) is serious, going all the way into the fundamental western & eastern philosophical thinkings, and the practical tools he learned and grasped from work and life, in deciphering the myth. Owe him an apology so am making it up by recommending - a self-help book which honestly did what was said on the tin...

Free only on Kindle Unlimited this book

Thanks Julian - just finished a bit more than half of it and will keep going tomorrow.

Don’t know what this guy had gone through to grasp these profound things - never have Zen, Tao and Bushido been presented and arranged in such a practical and useful manner and shown to echo so well with the western schools of philosophy. I can feel the strengths of the theory and the tools presented. It’s small book alright, but an empowering one - thanks for the recommendation

Glad you enjoyed it Chris - good to benefit from it

Many thanks Julian. Now finished it. This is some unique work… Made quite an impressive positive impact on me, it feels, for a small book of less than a hundred pages

Understand what you are saying Chris. I also like the way it simplifies and breaks down the sophisticated thoughts and methodologies to make them easily digestible for me. Spent only a bit over a day on it but feel I've managed to pick up a lot of useful things from it

Yes feels quite neatly structured to be user-friendly

It seems a pretty "in" book at the moment amongst the so-called "elite" circles of investors, lawyers and investment bankers, who don't have much time to go through big books but are always on a look-out for empowerment to "bulk" themselves up in their business practice. I also know a politician reading it - I've just gone through the "Introduction" section and feel that the system described there for formulating an invincible mind does work from a logic point of view. Am reading Chap. 1 tomorrow evening and would be happy to discuss it with you guys on this one

Sure - it’s a small book but did make a lot of points worth heeding

Agreed - strange. Every time I went through it some more wording caught my eye and a new level of apprehension on the subject occurred. Fascinating book

Same feeling Julian. This is quite something

Well… With the risk of a bit of spoilers, the system created by the book does seem to follow some ice-cold logic deriving from deed thinking.

Seems it bridged Zen, Tao, Bushido, the Holy Bible and the western schools of philosophy, and formulated a system and practice for building an invincible mindset that is not susceptible to the impact of any negative external event, comprising of seven overarching pillars with practical tools and methodologies described in detail, including the power of ego-free; the brilliance of pliability and resilience; the wonder of the “void but enlightened” state of the mind; the achievement of absolute tranquility; manage the omnipresent paradox in life; rein in desire to ensure sustainability and productivity, and perceive the world and oneself from a higher-dimension.

A massive over-simplification of its analysis and practical tools of course, but reckon a generally correct summary?

Fair enough

Many thanks Julian for the summary. Have now read through the first chapter on invincibility and strengths of the ego-free. General impression - the stuff is relentlessly practical. Do you feel the same when reading though the rest 6 chapters?

Think so Neil. I felt the same way - practical advice throughout alongside philosophical analysis

One question though - in one chapter the book said something like “The problem of a fox or rabbit struggling over a fence will never be an issue for an eagle.” I wonder what he meant by that exactly…

Think he meant many things there, but the main point of that analysis was over why (and how) one could become happier and more capable of handling problems if they perceive the world (and the matter at hand) from a higher dimension/perceptive. I recall somewhere in the same chapter he also quoted Einstein’s saying that “A problem can never be solved on the same level as it was created”, hence his further analysis about the necessity to “escalate” issues to get them solved (but with a slight different meaning of “escalation”…)

Agreed - he was talking about the importance of possessing a higher perception over the world and human life. Observing from a higher dimension, a lot of anger and pain can even be avoided and one will be more able to focus on what he is doing to achieve what he wants to achieve. Part of the analysis in that chapter also reminds me of what Winston Churchill famously said: “If you stop and throw rocks at every dog that barks at you, you’ll never get to where you want.”

Ha! Many thanks guys for the explanation. Good to discuss these things out - the book could go a bit too deep now and then

Good to share - as the book helpfully put, there is power in kindness executed with subtlety haha

Another question: in one chapter (the one about "Still Water Runs Deep"), the book talked about the power of an absolute tranquil mind, not just in bringing peace (and thereby happiness) to one's heart but also in bringing success to one's career. It gave examples such as the "warrior spirit" (e.g. first, the warrior needs to be at peace with the idea that his self may be killed by the opponent and that can be a fair outcome of the combat, and then, from that position, he starts mustering the real warrior's power to focus on the combat at hand and actually survive it...) Was just thinking if a tranquil mind is really helpful for achieving successes? For example for athletes, whose ability to "move" (rather than to stay still) is an important factor for them to win?

Seems a lot of spoilers in this string of discussion… I hope the author doesn’t mind..

Guess it's fine... His is a self-sufficient ecosystem with endless profound thoughts, and here we are just picking bits and pieces of them to discuss

I appreciate the spoilers guys - please keep going... Would be healthy if sophisticated books like this can be discussed over between readers so it can be understood to a deeper level. These points discussed are helpful and incidentally addressed some questions and doubts I always had at the back of my mind

We are just discussing the practical points floated by the book, not the detailed analysis or the way they are presented, so hopefully no spoilers. I still have points keen to discuss like the omnipresent paradox and the power of kindness executed with subtlety

In that case - in one chapter, towards the end, the book talked about "tucking away your ego". The reasoning leading up to the point all seemed sensible although one dwelling doubt in my head is how we define "ego"? I guess my reservation is that, if we "tuck away" ego, would that mean tucking away our identity and, say, self-confidence?

I had the same doubt on that paragraph as well, until I came cross this definition given by the author for “ego” (he defines things in quite a legal way it seems, which is a bit funny for a philosophy book): Ego is defined as “a self-centered, biased view of the world which subconsciously expects the external world to operate to suite one’s own emotional needs, or to give favorable feedback to one’s emotion, and which triggers negative feelings whenever the external world is perceived to have ‘fallen short’ of such expectation”.

So he seems to be saying that one should not be expecting that the external world operates as one would expect it to operate, but should be content and happy that it operates as it naturally does. That way, one will not be left open and vulnerable to the perceived “unsatisfactory” situation of the external world, over which one has no control anyway, but will remain assured about themselves and undisturbed regardless of the situation of the external world. This seems a sure way to seal and secure one’s confidence and self-worth, rather than to diminish it.

I think this one echoes back to the introductory section of the book, when the author explained why air is more invincible than diamond, even if diamond is the hardest naturally-existing substance on earth. It said that however hard diamond is, it can be chipped or smashed by man-made weapons. Air, on the other hand, offers no target and cannot be harmed or destroyed. Instead, whoever punches at the air with his full might may get a shoulder sprain. Following that analogy he explained that emptying oneself of ego removes the target which one's enemy was always looking to attack: "Your enemy wants to hit the bullseye in your mind? They can't even find the billboard." This does make sense, reading together.

Thanks guys - now I get it!

My pleasure - guys have been helping me understand some points arising from the book too

Specifically about this point raised by Beatrice, just to add that the author appears to seek to achieve the “non-reactive”, invincible, state of mind by combining (i) the tucking-away of ego by exercising wisdom and inner strength (and as mentioned in my previous comment, “ego” was defined much more narrowly than “self”, as clearly one can’t tuck away “himself”); (ii) practicing the mental state of tranquility (or as some would put it, “equanimity”); and (iii) exercising adaptability and stoicism in the face of external disturbance (amongst others).

What he seems to be doing here is to address and cover everything that could work against or attack one’s positive mental state between the 7 “pillars” in the book, which he seems to have built from the teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, Bushido, Stoicism, the philosophy of Socrates/Plato, and the Bible. I recall he also specifically mentioned in the book that he approached these schools of thoughts purely from the perspective of philosophy and practicality for achieving happiness and success in the “earthly” world, not from a religious perspective, so people in religion do not need to worry that exercising them may go against their religious value (I as a Christian don’t - the book teaches about the power of kindness anyway (kindness has to be executed with subtly though, as it said, which I agree).

I'm also a Christian. I've no mental difficulty accepting or processing these points raised. I recall that the author also said he treats the "heavenly rules" deriving from religions with utmost respect, and the thoughts and practices set out in his book are scoped so as to only address the rules practical and useful in this "earthly" world.

Anything coming across as profound has something "wise" or even "otherworldly" in it, be it philosophy or religion. It feels what the author did was to decipher and structure the useful and practical parts of all these profound thoughts to help "worldly" people achieve of happiness and success. From this perspective he doesn't have to tell philosophy from religion.

In terms of religion, I found that the book actually helps me understand some of the biblical quotes further by explaining and demonstrating it in “earthly” terms, such as the quote “Those who exalts himself will be humbled, and those who humbled himself will be exalted.” It’s not that I didn’t understand this quote previously, but having had a good appreciation of the author’s reasoning about the practical advantage of tucking away one’s ego, I feel that my understanding of the quote has reached a new (and more solid) level.

Well, going beyond the ego point, this book (How to be Happy: the Wisdom to Attain Happiness and Success by Constructing an Invincible Mind) has recently lead me to revisit another collection of books it referred to, all to do with self help/control of one’s own mind, such as the Book of Five Rings, Tao Te Ching, the Meditations, Letters from a Stoic, Phedo etc. When I read these books again this time around, I feel I can finally get what these ancient philosophers/warriors were trying to say.

Thanks Chris - although I tend not to call it "winner/dictator" mentality - maybe "winner/sage" mentality? Think the great philosophers such as Socrates and Seneca are pretty much (mentally) insulated from (even their own) physical pain and suffering as well...

Whether they are superheroes or super villains, they are “successful” in their own way. So maybe there is not much difference when it comes to the analysis of the the “invincible” mindset in the book

Well... Difference being super villains and dictators are frequently psychopaths, so although they display some of the characteristics analysed by the book such as the "wooden rooster" phenomenon, which makes them super effective in achieving their evil purposes, they never possess the other characteristics analysed in the book such as an ultra-tranquilent mind, an eagle-view horizon, strong ability to manage the omnipresent paradox, pliability and adaptability in the face of obstacles and changing environment, etc.. These are all straits to ensure that a person is always both "happy" and "successful", not just "successful" as the super villains could arguably be regarded as.

You are right - bad guys do not tend to enjoy happiness/peace of mind even if they managed to pull off their evil plans

Indeed - not "successful", but "effective", these super villains...

Seems the book just sets the scene and lists the methodology for a mental game. Ultimately, being “happy” and “successful” are just the results of playing the mental game this way

When we talk about “good” or “bad” people here, we instinctively apply normally accepted moral standards. This said, bearing in mind that in “Phaedo” written by Plato, through Socrates’ words he managed to make it clear that all the generally accepted values we accept as social norm, such as “justice”, “morality”, “fairness”, can be elusive and hard to define, and subject to manipulation by people with ill will (such as politicians). Frederick Nietzsche holds a similar opinion about these social values and gave a detailed analysis why this is so.

Therefore, it’s possible that when the author analyses ways to achieve “happiness” and “success”, he is above the “good” and “bad” debate in moral judgement, but simply discussed the ways to be “effective”/“successful”, with a good spirit (happiness), in the human world. That’s why both supervillains and superheroes appear to display some characteristics analyzed in their the book.

That's the fascinating thing about human society Chris - it is held up by values which, upon a closer look, are all hard to define or delineate. This reminds me of what Lao Tsu said in Tao Te Ching as well, which is similar with what Socrates said as recorded in Phaedo: "Only when the Tao stops operating as smoothly as it should have been, people started to rely bindly on illusive moral values..."

But of course moral values, although elusive, are very important for a civilized society

But of course moral values, although elusive, are very important for a civilized society

Yes being perceived to be following the moral code makes us feel good and in possession of an edge over those who are perceived not to

The "external" vs. "internal" debate probably goes into a further level implied by the book, i.e. the underlying thoughts that anything "out there" in the external world is ultimately mortal, illusive and diminishable, but on the inside, the soul is immortal and the mind is indestructible if fine-tuned to a certain level.

Here I follow Socrates' logical analysis in "Phaedo" as to why soul is immortal: assuming things who simply can never co-exist are opposite in nature, such as fire and snow (when fire comes, snow melts, vice versa), soul simply can't co-exist with death. When our soul is in the body, we are not dead. When we are dead, the body has no soul. Hence Soul is the opposite of death. And what exactly is the opposite of death? Immortal. So soul is immortal.

Wow... Many thanks Julian. This probably explains in another way why Buddha says that the "external world" is all illusory, and only the soul is real and survives "time". If you think about it - time itself has no meaning for the immortal (and for God). If we see a tree grow from a seed in one second, we call it a "magic trick" and an "illusion". But if we see a tree grow from a seed in 40 years, we think it is real? TIME DOESN"T MATTER to high dimensional beings, and therefore both scenario are ILLUSORY. Only the soul survives the time, as well argued by Socrates.

This would also demonstrate to an extent why the Bible says (along the lines of) the wealth in the earthly world is liable to pest, stealing and diminishment and one should accumulate wealth in heaven. The immortal things are not in the external world, and the key to immortality is in one’s heart(soul).

Beatrice wrote: "Seems the book just sets the scene and lists the methodology for a mental game. Ultimately, being “happy” and “successful” are just the results of playing the mental game this way"

Hopefully only good people can be "happy" and "successful", while the bad ones could be "successful" but are without inner peace