Happiness

All sentient beings are driven to survive and to avoid suffering. Members of all species but ours appear fully content once they arrive at a state devoid of survival threats and threats of suffering. Our species is different — to us surviving and not suffering is not enough, we want more. Specifically, what we want is happiness. 

Given the universal appeal of happiness it is peculiar, to say the least, that, in general, we have but a vague notion of what it is. Most people are hard pressed to say anything rational and meaningful about happiness, and only a rare few are able to offer a satisfying definition of it. (You may want to pause your reading for a minute and check for yourself: Can you define happiness? If not, can you at least say something meaningful and rational/objective {rather than emotional/subjective} about it? See?) The following presentation aims to address this; it concludes with what I hope you will find to be an acceptable and, most importantly, useful, definition of happiness.

The prevailing lack of clarity about what happiness is obviously does not reflect our level of interest in it. The human aspiration for happiness is central in the human condition. Our relationship with happiness is a uniquely defining feature of our species: Only humans relate to happiness as a justification for making the effort that is required in order to survive.

Happiness and Enlightenment

‘Happiness’ can be considered synonymous with the Buddhist concept of ‘Enlightenment’ — both are highly desired mental states and in both are said to incorporate the cessation of suffering. Achieving full enlightenment, like achieving complete happiness, is clearly a very tall order; arguably, an abstraction. From a practical point of view both enlightenment and happiness may best be considered as ideals to pursue ongoingly, and approximate indefinitely (rather than as binary, all or nothing, an outcome that one either succeeds or fails to achieve). Part of appeal of the view that the pursuit of happiness, like the pursuit of enlightenment, is an open-ended, life-long process is that, as such, pursuing happiness effectively, i.e., moving ever closer to it (even if there is no ‘it’, or ‘there’, there) is within the reach of every human being, not just special, high-level practitioners.

The same conclusion — that happiness is unattainable but pursuable, can be arrived at from different angles. For example, according to Buddhist thinking, “being” anything (e.g., “being enlightened” or “being happy”), in as much as “being” implies a static, permanent state, is impossible because it conflicts with the law of impermanence (that states that nothing is permanent but change, which must be recognized in order to pursue happiness effectively). Consequently, to be happy one must realize that it is impossible to be happy… Or, to attain happiness one must realize that it is unattainable… (Urg!) Practically, the paradox can be circumvented by focusing on the reward inherent to the effective pursuit of happiness, rather than on the imaginable prize that would be its acquisition. In other words, being happy may not be an option (as in, incompatible with the laws of reality), however, an open-ended commitment to the process of pursuing happiness is not only feasible, it may be the next-best-thing to having it.

The same conclusion can be reached by following the Buddhist idea that suggests that all human suffering fall into one of two scenarios: In the first scenario a person wants something and can not get what they want. In the second scenario a person wants something and does get what they want.

While clearly in-line with the First Noble Truth (that guarantees there will be suffering), it may seem to conflict with the third Noble Truth that states that there is a way out of suffering, but it does not. There are actually two ways out from this trap of suffering: One is to stop ‘wanting’ — If one stops wanting then neither one of the two suffering scenarios apply. Unfortunately, developing a mind that is completely free of all wants and desires may be unattainable (at least to us, regular folk; some spiritual practitioners devote their entire lives to the task of abolishing all desires, or ‘wants’, and even they may never accomplish this goal completely, arguably, because the desire to abolish all desires is a desire, a similar paradox to the one encountered earlier).

But, thankfully, there’s a plan ‘B’! The second way out of the suffering hinges on appreciating the reward inherent to the effective pursuit of that which is desired, and on placing it above the imaginable reward at the pursuit’s conclusion. A high enough value that is gained in the process of pursuing something can offset the suffering that is imminent in either of its two possible conclusions (i.e., getting or not-getting that which was pursued). 

The following imaginary example may help to illustrate the point: Imagine that you learn (from reliable sources, of course) that a treasure worth a million dollars is buried precisely 1,000 miles away from where you are. Since you could do a lot of good with a million dollars, you set out to get the treasure. Next, imagine that there is a way for you to travel that pays $1,000 for each mile you cover. Choosing this way, when you arrive at your destination you will have accumulated $1,000,000. If you find the treasure you will have twice the amount you sought out to get. However, if it turns out that there is no buried treasure there, no problem — by getting there the right way you have as much as you expected to find in the first place, when you set out. 

The journey becomes the reward when it improves the traveler. Discovering the reward inherent to the journey negates the disappointment that awaits in its conclusion. Unlike learning how to abandon all desires, learning how to reap the reward that is built into the pursuit of happiness (and enlightenment) is within the reach of the ordinary person.

Accepting that it is not about being happy, but rather, it’s about pursuing happiness effectively is a required adjustment to our relationship with happiness. It supports the idea that the effective pursuit of happiness is a life-long process that is its own reward. It brings to mind a David Mitchell quote: “Paradise is the road to paradise” or, modified to fit our discussion: Happiness is the effective pursuit of happiness.

Mood, Pleasure, and Happiness

To pursue something effectively the pursuer needs to know as much as they can about that which is being pursued. Certainly, they need to be able to distinguish it from things that appear to be similar, but are not the same. For example, to hunt a Grizzly bear the hunter must be able to distinguish between a Grizzly and a Black bear, not to mention the difference between a Grizzly bear and a raccoon. Similarly, in the pursuit of happiness it is important to clearly distinguish happiness from similar states of mind that are simply not the same. The two most important mental states to distinguish from happiness are the state of good-mood and the experience of pleasure.

Let’s start with mood: The language we use to describe mood states highlights a problem. We often use the word ‘happy’ to describe being in a good-mood, and ‘unhappy’ to describe being in a bad-mood. This usage is both a source and an expression of the underlying confusion between good-mood and happiness. Mood is a transient, usually short lasting, mental phenomenon. As per its definition, mood is the emotional response to the perceived quality of one’s present reality. The higher the perceived quality of the present moment, the better the resulting mood (for a detailed discussion of this topic go to: https://wp.me/P7aKBB-fD  ). Happiness is a different phenomenon. It is a much bigger deal than even the most intense of good moods, such as joy, elation, or euphoria. 

The relationship between mood and happiness is akin to the relationship between weather and climate. The climate is a defining trait of a territory. The weather is superimposed on the climate, changes moment to moment and doesn’t define anything outside the transient moment in which it lasts. Places where the climate is harsh can have brief periods of good weather, and vice versa — pleasant climate allows for brief periods of bad weather. Similarly, one can be doing well in the pursuit of happiness and experience times of bad mood, and vice versa — one can experience periods of an elevated mood while their pursuit of happiness is in total shambles.

A Buddhist story tells of a monk who used to visit a certain village for many years. On one of his visits a villager approached the monk and told him that he was offended by him. The startled monk asked the man how he had done so. He responded by saying that every time the monk had come through the village he had always inquired with him as to how he was doing, and each and every time the monk responded saying he was ‘fine’. “Eventually” said the villager “It dawned on me that you must consider yourself better than the rest of us, ordinary folk — How come you are never in a bad mood? Don’t you have bad days, like everyone else? How can your mood always be fine?!” Hearing that the monk was somewhat relieved; after extending an apology for the misunderstanding he added: “Of course I have good days, when my mood is good, and bad days when I’m in a bad mood, just like everybody else. It’s just that, as a result of my practice, on good days I’m fine, and on bad days I’m also fine”. Fluctuating weather on a backdrop of a good climate.

As one develops a level of mastery in the pursuit of happiness (e.g., through practicing and cultivating mindfulness) the moment to moment fluctuations in mood become less intense and less important. Moreover, the attribution of lesser importance (which manifests with paying less attention) to one’s mood makes it easier to maintain focus on the pursuit of happiness which, in turn, tends to contribute to its efficacy.

Next, let’s consider pleasures. The frequency with which the pursuit of pleasure is confused with the pursuit of happiness is striking, particularly given how costly this confusion typically is. The confusion itself is not surprising, given that both happiness and pleasures are positive and attractive experiences, but otherwise they are very different. Investing resources in the pursuit of pleasures with the misguided belief that the investment is made in the pursuit of happiness is invariably problematic. 

Consider the following, all too common scenario: A hard working, successful person has accumulated enough wealth to afford all kinds of pleasures: A luxurious home, nice cars, beautiful clothes, fine foods, expensive get-aways, etc.. The experiences associated with these acquisitions are positive and pleasurable, but brief. What’s worse — none of these experiences contribute to a sense of happiness. Instead of experiencing life as a movement in the direction of happiness, our imaginary wealthy person ends up feeling either cheated, somehow inadequate, or both. In reality, the problem (or, at least part of the problem) is that they are missing the crucial difference between these two positive mental experiences, pleasure and happiness.

Pleasure comes from a release of tension. Consider hunger as an example of tension. When a fasting person eats, the preexisting tension — hunger, is relieved which amounts to a pleasurable sensation. Once full, i.e., sans the tension of hunger, the same person receiving the exact same meal would not experience any pleasure in it. In addition, to maximize the pleasure sensation, the release of tension has to happen quickly. If the tension is released slowly, gradually, the pleasure is reduced. If the hungry person were to receive just a single spoonful of food every hour it would not be as pleasurable as having all the food he wanted (it would be possible to derive some pleasure and it would be better than not having food at all, but it would be less pleasurable than having unrestricted access to food would be). 

The quick release of a pre-existing tension is a condition for deriving the maximum pleasure from an experience. Consequently, pleasures are fleeting: Brevity is built into the design of pleasures. Shortly after the tension is released the pleasure exists only as a memory, if that. The inherently brief, “spike” essence, of pleasures distinguishes it from happiness.

Neither the intensity of a pleasure nor the accumulation of numerous pleasures can transform the experiences to happiness. It’s simply impossible to pile-up enough racoons to produce a Grizzly bear. Ignorance of this basic fact is remarkably common and typically has dire consequences: Investing one’s resources in the pursuit of pleasures while erroneously believing that the investment is made in the pursuit of happiness generally leads to frustration and [/glossary]resentment[/glossary]. Moreover, it can lead to demoralization that follows the conclusion that one’s pursuit of happiness is doomed to fail.

It should be noted that there is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing pleasures. The appeal of pleasures is hard-wired into our brains and is a functionally important survival tool. Ultimately, pleasures are most rewarding when they are experienced on the backdrop of an effective pursuit of happiness (which implies a secured survival). Problems arise from the failure to distinguish between happiness and pleasure, which is typically manifested by misapplication of resources. Specifically, when a resource that is needed in the pursuit of happiness (or survival) is applied to the pursuit of pleasures instead. 

 

Happiness

So far we have established that happiness is a very desired but (unlike pleasures and good mood) unattainable mental state. Next we shall examine the conditions that must be met for the pursuit of happiness to proceed satisfactorily. There are three pre-requisites for an effective pursuit of happiness: Inner-peace, Passion, and Compassion.

Inner-Peace

Inner peace (or equanimity) is the first prerequisite for the effective pursuit of happiness.

Pessimism, or dreading the future is incompatible with pursuing happiness effectively. I think it’s self-evident that the conviction that one’s future is destined to be worse than their present is guaranteed to get in the way of their pursuit of happiness.

The opposite of pessimism — optimism, however, is not a requirement for an effective pursuit of happiness. Optimism could not be a prerequisite because it is invariably irrational: The conviction that the future will be better than the present is always unfounded, as is any conviction about the makings of the future, given the fact that the future is simply unknowable. The point is that neither pessimism or optimism support the pursuit of happiness.

This raises the question — if neither optimism nor pessimism will do, what will? The attitude that is neither pessimistic or optimistic is one of inner peace. Having inner-peace means that the future is neither unsettlingly repulsive or attractive. Inner peace is associated with the confidence that, regardless of its (unknowable) specific makings, the future will be manageable, or “handleable”. Moreover, consciously or subconsciously, inner peace is linked to the notion that, however the future turns out to be, one will deal with it with  dignity.   

The term ‘anxiety’ denotes the absence of inner-peace and the field of anxiety is all about problems of inner-peace (with or without practitioners in the field realizing it). To a large extent, what makes anxiety disorders serious conditions is that, by virtue of representing a problem with inner-peace, they interfere with pursuing happiness effectively. Conversely, relief from anxiety, which is synonymous with gaining inner-peace, is typically experienced as an improvement in the pursuit of happiness. (A detailed  discussion of Anxiety is presented here: https://wp.me/P7aKBB-zU .) Therefore, maneuvers that can reduce anxiety should be considered favorably in the context of the pursuit of happiness. Anxiety reduction has been well documented in response to pharmacologic treatment, psychotherapy, meditation, and regular physical exercise. (Anxiety can also be reduced with the use of alcohol and other drugs, which is clearly part of their appeal; the  incontrovertible damage this approach to anxiety management is guaranteed to cause clearly outweighs the perceived benefit associated with it.) 

 

Passion

Passion is the second prerequisite for the effective pursuit of Happiness.

Happiness is a state of mental arousal. It is unlikely that you will hear anyone saying “I’m so happy I want to go to sleep”; you are much more likely to hear someone saying “I’m so happy I want to dance”. 

In most (if not all) cultures, happy occasions are celebrated by displays of high energy — singing, dancing, jumping, making loud noises, lifting and throwing objects etc.. These are all physical activities that utilize high levels of energy which, in turn, are automatically associated with happiness.

When it comes to happiness, the actual energy is mental energy. The word often used to describe this mental energy is ‘passion’ which is synonymous with ‘caring’ (it is also noteworthy that ‘passion’ is very different from ‘desire’, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with sexuality). The effective pursuit of happiness is associated with caring about something. It doesn’t matter what the caring is about, as long as it is not exclusively self-centered; it can center on people, animals, the planet, a sports team or a political party. To pursue happiness effectively, you gotta care about something.

Caring is expressed and experienced through interest. We are automatically interested in the things we care about and vice versa — that which we don’t care about is not interesting. Regardless of its causes, an inability to care (clinically referred to as a pervasive lack of interest) is incompatible with an effective pursuit of Happiness.

This is relevant to psychiatry and psychology because ‘depressive disorders’ are conditions primarily characterized by loss of passion. Anhedonia — a core symptom of major depression, is defined (in the DSM – The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which currently is the primary guide to psychiatric diagnosis) as a “markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all or almost all activities”. Interestingly, the diagnosis of major depression does not require that the patient experience a depressed mood. The loss of interest, i.e. the loss of passion, or anhedonia, is a sufficient symptom for the diagnosis. (In my years of practicing psychiatryI have seen countless patients that were in deep sadness but did not suffer from the illness we refer to as major depression; I have never seen a patient with major depression with an intact level of interest, caring, or passion.)

The importance of caring begs the question ‘how come we are not all instinctively, or automatically, as caring as we can possibly be?’ In other words, what is it that limits our passions, our capacity to care, and our level of interest? The answer is multifactorial. Some of the time the limiting factor is physical — a problem in the “hardware”, some type of damage to the brain’s system that is normally responsible for sustaining caring. These “hardware” problems are in the realm of psychiatry and their treatment requires physical means (e.g., medications, brain stimulation techniques). In comparison, a reduced caring-capacity can be an acquired problem that typically results from a traumatic life experience. In this context, acquired loss of caring, or loss of passion, can be traced to the connection between caring and pain, between passion and suffering (it’s not a mere coincidence that the word ‘passion’ is actually a synonym for the word ‘suffering’). One is more likely to hurt where one cares. Sustaining passion is accepting the risk of suffering. Undeniably then, caring and increased vulnerability are inseparable. In the pursuit of happiness it is clearly better to love and lose than not to love at all.

Clinically, the loss of passion is the main symptom of major-depression. This hallmark depressive symptom, known as ‘anhedonia’, is defined in the psychiatric diagnostic manual as “a markedly diminished interest or pleasure, in all or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day” which is a long winded way of saying “loss of passion”. To an extent, what makes depressive disorders serious conditions is that, by virtue of representing a problem with passion, they interfere with the effective pursuit of happiness. Conversely, relief from depression, which is synonymous with recovering or regaining passion, is typically experienced as an improvement in the pursuit of happiness. (A detailed  discussion of Depression is presented here: https://wp.me/P7aKBB-dX .) Therefore, maneuvers that can reduce depression should be considered favorably in the context of the pursuit of happiness. Such maneuvers may be primarily biological (utilizing pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic means, such as ECT and TMS) psychological (i.e. utilizing psychotherapy) or a combination of both. As is the case with inner peace and anxiety, meditation, and regular physical exercise also appear to have a potential therapeutic role. (Also similarly to anxiety, mood may be temporarily elevated with the use of various substances, which is clearly part of their appeal; the incontrovertible damage this approach to depression management is guaranteed to cause clearly outweighs the perceived benefit associated with it.)

 

Compassion

Compassion is the third prerequisite in the pursuit of happiness.

The relationship with one’s ‘self’ obviously impacts the pursuit of happiness. That self hatred is not compatible with an effective pursuit of happiness is a matter of common sense. Yet, self-love is not a requirement for pursuing happiness effectively (it may even be a hiderence). The state of mind that is neither hating or loving (of the ‘self’ or another) is a state of compassion.

Compassion is not a sentiment, it is a state of mind. The Dalai Lama defines compassion as the investment in reducing suffering. Another Buddhist definition suggests that compassion is the capacity to accept someone exactly as they are (these seemingly quite different definitions are actually one and the same; more on this in the following).

The non-sentimental essence of compassion is illustrated in a true account of a group of Buddhist monks in Cambodia in the late 1970’s. The highlights of the story are as follows: A group of Buddhist monks were imprisoned, for no reason, by the Khmer Rouge. These innocent monks were subjected to torture throughout their period of captivity (the tortures inflicted by the Khmer Rouge are notoriously known as some of the cruelest in human history.). After more than two years and the demise of about half of the members of the group, the survivors were freed and admitted to an American military hospital where they received care and were medically stabilized. As part of the freed hostages treatment protocol the surviving monks were also examined by a psychiatrist. Based on experience, the psychiatrist expected the monks to display various signs of mental trauma. To his surprise, none of the monks exhibited post traumatic symptoms. Curious to understand this unexpected finding, the psychiatrist asked each of the monks individually if they could explain their apparently intact mental state. Each of the monks provided the same answer: They were sure that praying was protective of their mental well being. When asked what they had prayed for, again they all had the same answer: While they prayed for various things, mostly they prayed for the well being of their captors…

The logic behind the monks praying for their tormentors’ well-being is very sound. It stems from the understanding that healthy, well-adjusted and content people (and animals) do not inflict harm deliberately. A tortured dog can be a dangerous animal. A well treated, healthy dog is man’s best friend. A lion in the savanna is dangerous if hungry, injured, or protecting its cubs. A well fed, healthy and secure lion is not dangerous and is unlikely to attack if unprovoked. The same principle applies to humans. A human being is extremely unlikely to cause harm deliberately while their pursuit of happiness is going well. 

Think of your own experience: Have you ever offended someone deliberately, or intentionally caused someone harm while you were content and doing well? Unlikely. When we are doing well the last thing we are likely to do is risk that well-being by causing harm to someone around us. It is suffering that makes us (and other sentient beings) potentially dangerous. If you think about a time when you knowingly caused someone harm I’m sure you’ll find that you have been suffering from something. You may not have realized it in real time, but in retrospect you will recognize you were not doing well. Suffering begets suffering (or as Brad Pitt in Bullet Train eloquently put it “hurt people hurt people”).

The Buddhist concept of the Cycle of Suffering comes to mind: Accordingly, a person who acts with the intent to harm is suffering from something. Their harmful action is guaranteed to, sooner or later, contribute to their suffering — make it worse. As their suffering increases they are even more likely to repeatedly act in harmful ways, which amounts to their entrapment in a cycle of suffering.

The monks’ doubtless understanding of the ‘cycle of suffering’ provided a solid logical foundation to praying for the well-being of their tormentors. The monks perceived their torment as proof that their captors were suffering. Moreover, they understood that if their tormentors stopped suffering, if and when they became well, they would stop inflicting harm. And conversely, if their suffering increased, they would become increasingly dangerous. Therefore, praying for their tormentors’ well being is the most logical thing for the monks to have prayed for. The monks’ sincere wish for the lessening of their tormentors’ suffering is the expression of their compassion (consistent with the Dalai Lama’s definition of compassion). And, maintaining compassion is what ultimately protected their own mental well-being.

The monks could have easily developed hatred toward their tormentors; I suspect that most ordinary people would. However, hate can only make matters worse. In all likelihood, it would have amplified their frustration about their helplessness and the injustice of their predicament and contributed to their victim role. 

Hate is not just practically futile, it is also mutually exclusive with compassion. A hated person is inherently unacceptable: Hating someone embodies rejecting them as they are. This brings us back to the aforementioned second definition of compassion — withholding acceptance of a person is withholding compassion from them. 

Whether we realize it or not, what makes it difficult to accept a person just as they are is the impact of their suffering. Overwhelmed by suffering, any of us is likely to act in ways that render us unacceptable. In other words, it is the person’s suffering, not the person, that is the source of the problem; therefore it is the suffering that is unacceptable, not the person who is suffering. This is how the two definitions of compassion coalesce to be one and the same.

Clinically, the loss of compassion is associated with some of the personality disorders, most notably borderline, antisocial, and narcissistic personality disorders (known as cluster ‘B’ personality disorders). Personality disorders are serious conditions ultimately because of their severe negative impact on the pursuit of happiness. Presently, there is no medical treatment for any of the personality disorders (medications are, at times, useful in treating some of the symptoms associated with personality disorders, but there is no known biological cause or treatment for the personality disorders). Various forms of psychotherapy (most notably Dialectic Behavioral Therapy (DBT) for the treatment of borderline personality disorder) have been shown to be effective treatments and the psychological approach is the mainstay of the treatment of these disorders.

Historically, psychiatry and clinical psychology, like Western medicine in general, have been interested in the absence of health. Hence, the focus in mental health has been on the absence of inner-peace (i.e., on anxiety disorders), absence of passion (i.e., depressive disorders), and the absence of compassion (i.e., personality disorders). Over the last few years this approach has been shifting, which is manifested with the emergence of ‘positive psychiatry’ and ‘positive psychology’. The ‘positive’ clinical approach focuses on ways to promote health in general, and specifically, contribute to the efficacy of the pursuit of happiness. Not surprisingly, this change coincides with a growing interest in the Buddhist practice of Mindfulness and the cultivation of  inner peace, passion, and compassion.

This is a welcome shift. In my view, it is difficult to overstate the importance inner-peace, passion, and compassion in the pursuit of happiness. Cultivating these traits is the most direct way to invest in the improvement of the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, these traits are the defining “ingredients” of happiness. With that in mind (and, as advertised at the beginning of this presentation) happiness can then be defined as follows: Happiness is the most desired, approachable but unattainable, state of mind that stems from the concurrent maximization of inner-peace, passion, and compassion.