The Laws

The following three laws of nature govern the pursuit of happiness:

• The Law of Impermanence (also known as the Law of Constant Change)
• The Law of Sameness (also known as the Law of Interconnectedness)
• The Law of Causality (also known as the Law of Karma)

In my clinical experience, the core issues for the vast majority of patients in psychotherapy can be traced back to ignorance of one or more of these laws. Let’s examine them in some detail.

Impermanence

The Law of Impermanence states that nothing is permanent but change. It is at the foundation of the Buddhist worldview, as well as modern physics and chemistry, which are similarly impressed with the ever-changing nature of reality at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels.

It is easy to lose sight of the Law of Impermanence, and it happens frequently — sometimes it seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Operating without awareness of impermanence is guaranteed to undermine the pursuit of happiness.

As a psychiatrist, I encountered ignorance of the Law of Impermanence most notably in the way my patients related to their emotions, especially negative emotions, and particularly sadness and anger. I heard statements such as “I know I’ll always feel as sad as I do now,” “I’ll always be angry about it,” or “I’ll never forgive” countless times — each an expression of ignoring impermanence.

The illusion of permanence (i.e., ignorance of the Law of Impermanence) is at the core of these and similar statements. It conflicts with the true nature of reality on every level: ourselves, our planet, our galaxy, and the universe we are in are not permanent; nothing has always been around, and nothing will be around forever. Certainly, feelings could not be an exception.

Even if these statements were adjusted to say “I will feel this way for the rest of my life,” they would be incompatible with the nature of reality. Feelings change. They may not change at the pace or in the direction one would prefer, but — by a law of nature — like everything else, the way we feel cannot be permanent. The statement “This too shall pass” may be accused of being too simplistic, but it cannot be accused of being wrong.

The language we use offers the best available view of our mental terrain, as I touched on in the Introduction. In this case, the notion that “I will always feel the way I feel now” covertly exaggerates and glorifies the role of one’s emotions, ultimately making it more difficult to manage them.

(Giving oneself permission to use language that refers to ‘feelings’ as if they could be permanent generally points to a potential problem in one’s pursuit of happiness, certainly so if it reflects one’s actual take on reality. The cost of overlooking terminology that indicates ignorance of any known, acceptable facet of reality is usually hidden, but it’s there.)

From the Buddhist perspective, ignorance of the Law of Impermanence is considered an attachment to the ‘illusion of permanence.’ Operating in reality (e.g., pursuing happiness) while attached to an illusion is, at best, inefficient; usually, it just doesn’t work.

Sameness

The Law of Sameness states that we are all the same. It can be rephrased (at least for the purpose of this discussion) to say that all members of a given species share their species-defining traits: All dogs share a “dogness,” all horses share a “horseness,” and all humans share a “humanness.”

Moreover, there’s a great variety of types of dogs — farm dogs, guard dogs, guide dogs, toy dogs, etc. — but no dog possesses more or less “dogness” than any other dog. There’s also a great variety of horse types — workhorses, racehorses, and ponies, for example — but no horse possesses more or less “horseness” than any other horse.

The human species is no less varied, and similarly, no member of our species can possess more or less “humanness” than any other member.

Traits that define one member of a species define all members of that species. And, by extension, a trait that distinguishes one member from any other member of a species cannot be a defining trait of either one, or of the species. (To clarify: Defining traits need not be exclusive to a species — but the traits that are both defining and exclusive to humans are particularly interesting and revealing.)

Even a cursory examination readily reveals many traits that distinguish individual members of the species. These traits include height, weight, physical strength, intelligence, skin tone, facial features, productivity, decency, etc. Because any of these traits can distinguish different members of the species from one another, none of them can be a defining trait of being human.

On the other hand, traits such as dependence on oxygen in a gaseous form, a requirement for a dietary supply of essential amino acids, and a body temperature maintained within a narrow range (about 33.2°C (91.8°F) to 40°C (104°F)) are defining traits — they define each and every member of the species. In other words, by decree of the Law of Sameness, an individual who doesn’t share even one of these traits could not be a member of the human species.

Of course, these traits are not exclusively human; the same traits define many other species. Traits such as a sense of humor, the attribution of value to beauty, the ability to recognize potential, the need for meaning, the need for loving connectedness in order to thrive, and the aspiration for happiness are both defining and exclusively human.

Modern biology’s recognition of a species is congruent with the Law of Sameness (much like physics and chemistry concur with the Law of Impermanence): all members of a given species share certain defining traits — typical chromosome number, metabolic requirements, developmental programs — without which membership in that species is impossible.

From a Buddhist point of view, the Law of Sameness is a consequence of interconnectedness: interconnected individual components of a whole share a fundamental sameness, by virtue of belonging to a singular entity.

Subjectively, a sense of connectedness can persist regardless of time, as long as individuals experience themselves as belonging to the same “whole.” For example, people who grew up in the same town, graduated from the same school (at any level, from elementary to graduate), or soldiers who served in the same military unit or branch, remain connected over time and continue to share a sameness. It may be more meaningful to some than to others, but, as anyone who had a chance encounter with a person who grew up in the same town, graduated from the same school, or served in the same military branch knows, the connection is undeniable.

Buddhists refer to ignorance of this connectedness as ‘the illusion of separateness,’ which is the same as ignorance of the Law of Sameness.

An illusion is a break with reality (like a delusion, sans an underlying pathology). An entity that fails to recognize an illusion in its operating manual — such as the illusion of separateness or the illusion of permanence — will, sooner or later, run into trouble. An entity (of any size — individuals, corporations, societies) that operates with an unrecognized attachment to an illusion in its perception of reality is likely to, sooner or later, fail.

In other words, parts of a single entity that differ in appearance, position, and function share a fundamental sameness by virtue of belonging to a ‘whole.’ Therefore, separatism — a “them or us” relationship between the parts of a singular entity — is not compatible with the entity’s stability or well-being.

At the societal level, ignorance of the Law of Sameness manifests as a separatist attitude; it translates to the attribution of different values to different members of a society and, ultimately, a willingness to discriminate between them. This ignorance (and ignorance in general) is incompatible with an effective pursuit of happiness.

To be clear, this position is not an expression of sentiment nor (perish the thought) political correctness. It expresses simple logic.

To fully appreciate the logic thereof, it helps to understand the rational underpinnings of compassion (and its key role in the pursuit of happiness). Briefly: a conscious willingness to discriminate negates compassion — compassion requires recognizing shared humanness; discrimination requires denying it; therefore, they’re mutually exclusive. 

As mentioned above, all humans possess the same “humanness.” Since the recognition of value is expressed with a show of respect, based on awareness of the fact that no human possesses more or less humanness than any other human, it is only rational to treat every member of the species with the same respect, regardless of any distinguishing markers. (It is peripheral, but noteworthy, that we also attribute value to the different skills different humans possess; hence, skill sets required to perform brain surgery, or hit three-point jumpers consistently, automatically garner additional respect from those who attribute value to these performances.)

Similarly, our identical humanness qualifies each of us to be treated with the same level of compassion. No member of the species can rationally substantiate a claim for deserving more compassion than any other member of the species, regardless of any and all distinguishing markers.

The willingness to discriminate between members of our species (or any species) stems from ignorance of this logic. Since the willingness to discriminate negates compassion, which is a prerequisite in the pursuit of happiness, this ignorance is incompatible with pursuing happiness effectively.

[Sidebar: (1) Some cultures, perhaps none more than the American, value and celebrate individuality and uniqueness, which may be at odds with the Law of Sameness.
The conflict there can be resolved by an observation attributed to the great physicist Niels Bohr. According to this maxim, there is more than one type of truth. One type is ‘trivial truth,’ which he defined as a true statement whose opposite is a false statement. For example, “I cannot breathe underwater” is a trivial truth because its opposite, “I can breathe underwater,” is a false statement.
Another type of truth is a “Great Truth” (for which I propose the term ‘Bohrian Truth,’ for obvious reasons), defined as a true statement whose opposite is another true statement. For example: “we are all the same” is a Great Truth (or a Bohrian Truth) because its opposite, “each of us is unique,” is another Great Truth.

(2) Buddhism holds that all sentient beings are interconnected and thus share a core sameness (manifested, for example, with the same wish to avoid suffering). Accordingly, in the Buddhist view, the Law of Sameness applies to all sentient beings, not just to human beings.
Maintaining constant awareness of the sameness of all sentient beings is a tall order. Even the smaller challenge of maintaining awareness of the sameness of all human beings is evidently formidable.
While awareness of the sameness of all sentient beings may be required to achieve complete enlightenment, I believe that, practically, it makes sense to tackle the smaller challenge first, and, once it is accomplished, attend to the bigger challenge and broaden the hegemony of the Law of Sameness to include all sentient beings.]

Causality

The Law of Causality states that everything in reality is an effect of an earlier cause (or causes). Everything in reality has its origins in an earlier reality.

A particularly important example of causality is the intent-consequence dyad: Every human volitional action is preceded by an intent. The intent is ‘the cause’ (expressed through a volitional act); the perceived consequences are ‘the effect.’

This connection is of the utmost importance because the quality of the cause influences the quality of ‘the effect.’ In other words, the quality of the intent behind the act influences the quality of the perceived results of the act.

Categorically, human intent exists on a continuum that stretches from ‘selfish intent,’ which is at the low end of the quality spectrum, to ‘selfless intent’ at the upper end, with ‘fair intent’ somewhere in between.

A deliberate act driven by an intent that is fair or better-than-fair (i.e., originating at the upper half of the intent quality spectrum) has a potential for positive results; that is, it can contribute to the pursuit of happiness. Conversely, any volitional act driven by an intent that is less-than-fair does not have the potential for positive results; it cannot contribute to the pursuit of happiness — it can only damage it. By a law of nature, volitional actions driven by an intent that is less than fair will, sooner or later, get in the way of the pursuit of happiness.

Ignorance of the Law of Causality is widespread. It manifests in acting without examining one’s own intent, which is always a mistake. Clarity of the nature of one’s own intent offers the best prediction of the consequences of one’s actions.

In the long run, the quality of an act’s consequences (i.e., the effect) cannot possibly exceed the quality of the intent behind it (i.e., the cause). Therefore, from a mindfulness perspective, examining the intent closely before committing to an act is imperative. If the examination reveals a questionable or poor intent (i.e., an intent that may be less than fair), refraining from the act is the obvious wise choice.

Actions driven by an intent that is less than fair may appear profitable; invariably, it is a short-term facade. Over time, such actions are guaranteed (again, given the operating law of nature) to undermine the pursuit of happiness. Conversely, loving actions (by the definition of love) are driven by an intent that is better than fair. Therefore, acting out of love has a built-in potential for positive results — loving actions can positively impact the pursuit of happiness. Therein lies (at least part of) the rational link between love and happiness.

[Sidebar: The common Western interpretation of the Law of Karma is that “bad” things will happen to a person as a punishment for conducting themselves “badly.” It is a profound misunderstanding. I think that it stems from the Judeo-Christian view depicting God as a judge and man as constantly being judged. This is incompatible with the Buddhist worldview, which does not include a judging God figure and generally rejects judgmentalism.
Buddhism considers suffering the result of ignorance; most pertinent to our discussion, ignorance of the Law of Cause-and-Effect manifests with actions driven by poor (or, at least, unexamined) intent, which leads to poor consequences — suffering. Suffering is not a punishment but an unavoidable result of ignorance. More importantly, suffering in the right way can contribute to enlightenment — studying or analyzing suffering can reveal its causes. Thus, it can expose and ultimately reduce ignorance (as confirmed by a reduction in suffering).
To put it briefly, the Western misconception of the Law of Karma perceives it as a cosmic justice system. The correct understanding of the Law of Karma perceives it as a cosmic educational system.]

 

REFERENCES

Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. (2000). The connected discourses of the Buddha: A translation of the Samyutta Nikāya. Wisdom Publications.

Guyton, A. C., & Hall, J. E. (2021). Textbook of medical physiology (14th ed.). Elsevier. 

Hanh, T. N. (1988). The heart of understanding: Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra. Parallax Press.

---

← Previous       Next →