The Laws

The following three laws of nature are cardinal in the pursuit of happiness:

  1. The law of impermanence
  2. The law of sameness (Also known as the law of Interconnectedness)
  3. The law of causality (Also known as the law of Karma)

These laws give rise to numerous secondary laws which I will present following a discussion of the primary laws.

  • The law of impermanence states that nothing is permanent — Nothing is permanent but change. This law is well recognized by modern physicists and chemists who are aware of the ever changing nature of reality at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels. Our Buddhist friends refer to it when they talk about the all too common ‘illusion of permanence’. The permission we often give ourselves to ignore the illusionary nature of permanence is guaranteed to get in the way of the pursuit of happiness.
  • The law of sameness states that we are all the same. Another way of stating it is: ‘A trait that distinguishes any two members of a species can not be defining of either.’

Modern biology is based on the realization that all members of a given species share a fundamental sameness (coded in the genome of that species). Our Buddhist friends refer to it when they talk about the ‘illusion of separateness’. Through our interconnectedness we are a single entity. We can be no more different from one another than a person’s fingers can be different from her toes. They differ in appearance but they are part of a single entity, and as such they are the same. The fingers couldn’t refer to the toes as ‘them and us’. As a consequence of their interconnectedness, they are one and the same.

The great physicist Niels Bohr suggested that there are a number of types of truths. A trivial truth is defined such that it’s opposite is a false statement. For example, ‘I can not breathe under water’ is a trivial truth (its opposite, ‘I can breath under water’ is a  false statement).  A Great Truth (which I suggest naming ‘Bohrian Truth’) is defined as a true statement that its opposite is another Great Truth. For example: ‘All pain is felt in the brain’ and it’s opposite — ‘The brain feels no pain’ are both true statements that therefore qualify as Bohrian truths. More relevant to the present discussion ‘we are all the same’ is a Great Truth, and its opposite, ‘each of us is unique’ is another Great Truth.

Discrimination between the members of any one species is in conflict with the law of sameness. It is incompatible with an effective pursuit of happiness. (Arguably, the law of sameness applies to all sentient beings, not just to human beings. That is because all sentient beings share a core sameness that includes awareness of their own existence, the wish to avoid suffering and the preference of freedom over its alternative. However, the smaller challenge — the awareness of the sameness of all human beings, sadly remains a formidable challenge. The importance of meeting this challenge can not be overemphasized. It seems more rational to first meet this narrow challenge and subsequently attend to broadening the appreciation of law of sameness to all sentient beings.)

  • The law of causality states that every aspect of present reality is a result of an earlier cause (sometimes referred to as the law of Karma). Nothing in reality is from nothing. All that is is a result of something preceding it.

A particularly important cause/effect dyad is the intent/action case. Every human volitional action is preceded by an intent. The intent is the cause and the action is the effect. Categorically, human intent exists on a continuum that stretches from ‘selfish intent’ to ‘selfless intent’. ‘Fair intent’ is somewhere in between. (Intent is discussed in detail elsewhere.)

When it comes to the human condition, the law of causality states that a deliberate action driven by an intent that is fair or better-than-fair has a potential to contribute to the pursuit of happiness. Conversely, any action driven by an intent that is less-than-fair does not have the potential to contribute to the pursuit of happiness. An act driven by an intent that is less than fair has only the potential to get in the way of the pursuit of happiness.

The Secondary Laws

  1. Freedom of choice is not a free choice.
  2. Uncertainty is certain.
  3. Nothing is above doubt but the room for doubt.
  4. The only acceptable fanaticism is the fanatic rejection of fanaticism.
  5. The essence of knowledge is to know that you don’t know.
  6. The most dangerous ignorance is ignorance of one’s own ignorance.
  7. Everything in moderation, other than moderation.
  8. Everything in human relations is open for negotiation, other than role of negotiation.
  9. Benefit always has a cost. Cost always has the potential for a benefit.

2 thoughts on “The Laws”

  1. Hello Doctor, How is free will reconciled with cause and effect? In your definition of meaning you state that every effect has a cause that precedes it, and every cause has a subsequent effect. Wouldn’t that hold true for intent and action or choices we make? Something caused us to make a choice. And something caused the cause that caused us to make that choice, and so on, back to the first domino that fell, so to speak. Even if we say I’m making this choice of my own free will the notion that we have a free will has influenced the choice. Thank you in advance for considering my question.

    1. Hi there,
      The question of free will has been debated since the dawn of recorded human thinking, so far be it for me to claim to have a definitive answer. That being said, here is my thoughts on the matter: Firstly, free will is axiomatic. There is no point in Mindfulness or in the idea of the pursuit of happiness (and psychotherapy for that matter) unless we accept free will axiomatically. (Please check https://whatilearnedsofar.com/theory/the-axioms/ for further discussion of this point.) Secondly, perhaps arguably, without freedom of choice human consciousness would be meaningless and futile, if not a cruel joke. Since nature doesn’t seem to invest in futility, jokes, or cruelty it stands to reason that the freedom to choose part and parcel of human consciousness. And lastly, from a pragmatic point of view, it appears (both common-sensically and in studies {e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5949610/) that a world view that allows for freedom of choice supports the pursuit of happiness better than the world view that excludes it. Since the view that accepts freedom of choice supports the pursuit of happiness I think it is prudent to embrace it (which, of course, is assuming that we have the necessary freedom of choice).
      Note that freedom of choice (assuming it exists) is limited. Specifically, we don’t have the freedom to choose whether or not we will suffer. We will — that’s the First Noble Truth. The Mindful view is that we do have the freedom to choose how we will suffer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *