The Art of Happiness Read online

  ‘You also need the ability to judge the long-term and short-term consequences of your behaviors and weigh the two. For example, in overcoming anger, although animals may experience anger, they cannot understand that anger is destructive. In the case of human beings, however, there is a different level, where you have a kind of self-awareness that allows you to reflect and observe that when anger arises, it hurts you. Therefore, you can make a judgement that anger is destructive. You need to be able to make that inference. So it’s not as simple as putting your hand in a fire, and then being burned and just learning in the future never to do it again. The more sophisticated your level of education and knowledge about what leads to happiness and what causes suffering, the more effective you will be in achieving happiness. So, it is because of this that I think education and knowledge are crucial.’

  Sensing, I suppose, my continued resistance to the idea of simple education as a means of internal transformation, he observed, ‘One problem with our current society is that we have an attitude towards education as if it is there to simply make you more clever, make you more ingenious. Sometimes it even seems as if those who are not highly educated, those who are less sophisticated in terms of their educational training, are more innocent and more honest. Even though our society does not emphasize this, the most important use of knowledge and education is to help us understand the importance of engaging in more wholesome actions and bringing about discipline within our minds. The proper utilization of our intelligence and knowledge is to effect changes from within to develop a good heart.’

  * The term Dharma has many connotations, but no precise English equivalent. It is most often used to refer to the teachings and doctrine of the Buddha, including the scriptural tradition as well as the way of life and spiritual realizations that result from the application of the teachings. Sometimes Buddhists use the word in a more general sense – to signify spiritual or religious practices in general, universal spiritual law, or the true nature of phenomena – and use the term Buddhadharma to refer more specifically to the principles and practices of the Buddhist path. The Sanskrit word Dharma is derived from the etymological root meaning ‘to hold and in this context the word has a broader meaning: any behavior or understanding that serves ‘to hold one back’ or protect one from experiencing suffering and its causes.

  CHAPTER 4

  Reclaiming Our Innate State of Happiness

  Our Fundamental Nature

  ‘Now, we are made to seek happiness. And it is clear that feelings of love, affection, closeness, and compassion bring happiness. I believe that every one of us has the basis to be happy, to access the warm and compassionate states of mind that bring happiness,’ the Dalai Lama asserted. ‘In fact, it is one of my fundamental beliefs that not only do we inherently possess the potential for compassion but I believe that the basic or underlying nature of human beings is gentleness.’

  ‘What do you base that belief on?’

  ‘The Buddhist doctrine of “Buddha Nature” provides some grounds for the belief that the fundamental nature of all sentient beings is essentially gentle and not aggressive.* But one can adopt this view without having to resort to the Buddhist doctrine of “Buddha Nature.” There are also other grounds on which I base this belief. I think the subject of human affection or compassion isn’t just a religious matter; it’s an indispensable factor in one’s day-to-day life.

  ‘So, first, if we look at the very pattern of our existence from an early age until our death, we can see the way in which we are fundamentally nurtured by other’s affection. It begins at birth. Our very first act after birth is to suck our mother’s or someone else’s milk. That is an act of affection, of compassion. Without that act, we cannot survive. That’s clear. And that action cannot be fulfilled unless there is a mutual feeling of affection. From the child’s side, if there is no feeling of affection, no bond, towards the person who is giving the milk, then the child may not suck the milk. And without affection on the part of the mother or someone else, then the milk may not come freely. So that’s the way of life. That’s reality.

  ‘Then, our physical structure seems to be more suited to feelings of love and compassion. We can see how a calm, affectionate, wholesome state of mind has beneficial effects on our health and physical well-being. Conversely, feelings of frustration, fear, agitation, and anger can be destructive to our health.

  ‘We can also see that our emotional health is enhanced by feelings of affection. To understand this, we need only to reflect on how we feel when others show us warmth and affection. Or, observe how our own affectionate feelings or attitudes automatically and naturally affect us from within, how they make us feel. These gentler emotions and the positive behaviors that go with them lead to a happier family and community life.

  ‘So, I think that we can infer that our fundamental human nature is one of gentleness. And if this is the case, then it makes all the more sense to try to live a way of life that is more in accordance with this basic gentle nature of our being.’

  ‘If our essential nature is kind and compassionate,’ I asked, ‘I’m just wondering how you account for all the conflicts and aggressive behaviors that are all around us.’

  The Dalai Lama nodded thoughtfully for a moment before replying, ‘Of course we can’t ignore the fact that conflicts and tensions do exist, not only within an individual mind but also within the family, when we interact with other people, and at the societal level, the national level, and the global level. So, looking at this, some people conclude that human nature is basically aggressive. They may point to human history, suggesting that compared to other mammals’, human behavior is much more aggressive. Or, they may claim, “Yes, compassion is a part of our mind. But anger is also a part of our mind. They are equally a part of our nature; both are more or less at the same level.” Nonetheless,’ he said firmly, leaning forward in his chair, straining with alertness, ‘it is still my firm conviction that human nature is essentially compassionate, gentle. That is the predominant feature of human nature. Anger, violence, and aggression may certainly arise, but I think it’s on a secondary or more superficial level; in a sense, they arise when we are frustrated in our efforts to achieve love and affection. They are not part of our most basic, underlying nature.

  ‘So, although aggression can occur, I believe that these conflicts aren’t necessarily because of human nature but rather a result of the human intellect – unbalanced human intelligence, misuse of our intelligence, our imaginative faculty. Now in looking at human evolution, I think that compared to some other animals’, our physical body may have been very weak. But because of the development of human intelligence, we were able to use many instruments and discover many methods to conquer adverse environmental conditions. As human society and environmental conditions gradually became more complex, this required a greater and greater role of our intelligence and cognitive ability to meet the ever-increasing demands of this complex environment. So, I believe that our underlying or fundamental nature is gentleness, and intelligence is a later development. And I think that if that human ability, that human intelligence, develops in an unbalanced way, without being properly counterbalanced with compassion, then it can become destructive. It can lead to disaster.

  ‘But, I think it’s important to recognize that if human conflicts are created by misuse of human intelligence, we can also utilize our intelligence to find ways and means to overcome these conflicts. When human intelligence and human goodness or affection are used together, all human actions become constructive. When we combine a warm heart with knowledge and education, we can learn to respect others’ views and others’ rights. This becomes the basis of a spirit of reconciliation that can be used to overcome aggression and resolve our conflicts.’

  The Dalai Lama paused and glanced at his watch. ‘So,’ he concluded, ‘no matter how much violence or how many bad things we have to go through, I believe that the ultimate solution to our conflicts, both internal and external, lies in returnin
g to our basic or underlying human nature, which is gentle and compassionate.’

  Looking again at his watch, he began to laugh in a friendly way. ‘So . . . we’ll stop here . . . it’s been a long day!’ He gathered up his shoes which he had slipped off during our conversation and retired to his room.

  The Question of Human Nature

  Over the past few decades, the Dalai Lama’s view of the underlying compassionate nature of human beings seems to be slowly gaining ground in the West, although it has been a struggle. The notion that human behavior is essentially egoistic, that fundamentally we are all out for ourselves, is deeply ingrained in Western thought. The idea that not only are we inherently selfish but aggression and hostility are part of basic human nature has dominated our culture for centuries. Of course, historically there were plenty of people with the opposite view. For instance, in the mid-1700s David Hume wrote a lot about the ‘natural benevolence’ of human beings. And a century later, even Charles Darwin himself attributed an ‘instinct of sympathy’ to our species. But for some reason the more pessimistic view of humanity has taken root in our culture, at least since the seventeenth century, under the influence of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, who had a pretty dark view of the human species. He saw the human race as being violent, competitive, in continual conflict, and concerned only with self-interest. Hobbes, who was famous for discounting any notion of basic human kindness, was once caught giving money to a beggar on the street. When questioned about this generous impulse, he claimed, ‘I’m not doing this to help him. I’m just doing this to relieve my own distress at seeing the man’s poverty.’

  Similarly, in the earlier part of this century, the Spanish-born philosopher George Santayana wrote that generous, caring impulses, while they may exist, are generally weak, fleeting, and unstable in human nature but, ‘dig a little beneath the surface and you’ll find a ferocious, persistent, profoundly selfish man.’ Unfortunately, Western science and psychology grabbed hold of ideas like that, then sanctioned, and even encouraged, this egoistic view. Beginning in the earliest days of modern scientific psychology, there was a general underlying assumption that all human motivation is ultimately egoistic, based purely on self-interest.

  After implicitly accepting the premise of our essential selfishness, a number of very prominent scientists over the past hundred years have added to this a belief in the essential aggressive nature of humans. Freud claimed, ‘the inclination to aggression is an original, self-subsisting, instinctual disposition.’ In the latter half of this century, two writers in particular, Robert Ardrey and Konrad Lorenz, looked at patterns of animal behavior in certain predator species and concluded that humans were basically predators as well, with an innate or instinctive drive to fight over territory.

  In recent years, however, the tide appears to be turning on this profoundly pessimistic view of humanity, coming closer to the Dalai Lama’s view of our underlying nature as gentle and compassionate. Over the past two or three decades, there have been literally hundreds of scientific studies indicating that aggression is not essentially innate and that violent behavior is influenced by a variety of biological, social, situational, and environmental factors. Perhaps the most comprehensive statement on the latest research was summarized in the 1986 Seville Statement on Violence which was drawn up and signed by twenty top scientists from around the world. In that statement, they of course acknowledged that violent behavior does occur, but they categorically stated that it is scientifically incorrect to say that we have an inherited tendency to make war or act violently. That behavior is not genetically programmed into human nature. They said that even though we have the neural apparatus to act violently, that behavior isn’t automatically activated. There’s nothing in our neurophysiology that compels us to act violently. In examining the subject of basic human nature, most researchers in the field currently feel that fundamentally we have the potential to develop into gentle, caring people or violent, aggressive people; the impulse that gets emphasized is largely a matter of training.

  Contemporary researchers have refuted not only the idea of humanity’s innate aggression, but the idea that humans are innately selfish and egoistic has also come under attack. Investigators such as C. Daniel Batson or Nancy Eisenberg at Arizona State University have conducted numerous studies over the past few years that demonstrate that humans have a tendency toward altruistic behavior. Some scientists, such as sociologist Dr. Linda Wilson, seek to discover why this is so. She has theorized that altruism may be part of our basic survival instinct – the very opposite to the ideas of earlier thinkers who theorized that hostility and aggression were the hallmark of our survival instinct. Looking at over a hundred natural disasters, Dr. Wilson found a strong pattern of altruism among disaster victims, which seemed to be part of the recovery process. She found that working together to help each other tended to ward off later psychological problems that might have resulted from the trauma.

  The tendency to closely bond with others, acting for the welfare of others as well as oneself, may be deeply rooted in human nature, forged in the remote past as those who bonded together and became part of a group had an increased chance of survival. This need to form close social ties persists up to the present day. In studies, such as one conducted by Dr. Larry Scherwitz, examining the risk factors for coronary heart disease, it has been found that the people who were most self-focused (those who referred to themselves using the pronouns ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘my,’ most often in an interview) were more likely to develop coronary heart disease, even when other health-threatening behaviors were controlled. Scientists are discovering that those who lack close social ties seem to suffer from poor health, higher levels of unhappiness, and a greater vulnerability to stress.

  Reaching out to help others may be as fundamental to our nature as communication. One could draw an analogy with the development of language, which, like the capacity for compassion and altruism, is one of the magnificent features of the human race. Particular areas of the brain are specifically devoted to the potential for language. If we are exposed to the correct environmental conditions, that is, a society that speaks, then those discreet areas of the brain begin to develop and mature and our capacity for language grows. In the same way, all humans may be endowed with the ‘seed of compassion.’ When exposed to the right conditions – at home, in society at large, and later perhaps through our own pointed efforts – that ‘seed’ will flourish. With this idea in mind, researchers are now seeking to discover the optimal environmental conditions that will allow the seed of caring and compassion to ripen in children. They have identified several factors: having parents who are able to regulate their own emotions, who model caring behavior, who set appropriate limits on the children’s behavior, who communicate that a child is responsible for her or his own behavior, and who use reasoning to help direct the child’s attention to affective or emotional states and the consequences of her or his behavior on others.

  Revising our basic assumptions about the underlying nature of human beings, from hostile to helpful, can open up new possibilities. If we begin by assuming the ‘self-interest’ model of all human behavior, then an infant serves as a perfect example, as ‘proof’ of that theory. At birth, infants appear to be programmed with only one thing on their minds: the gratification of their own needs – food, physical comfort, and so on. But if we suspend that basic egoistic assumption, a whole new picture begins to emerge. We could just as easily say that an infant is born programmed for only one thing: the capacity and purpose of bringing pleasure and joy to others. By just observing a healthy infant, it would be hard to deny the underlying ‘gentle’ nature of human beings. And from this new vantage point, we could make a good case that the capacity to bring pleasure to another, the caregiver, is inborn. For example, in a newborn infant the sense of smell is developed to perhaps only 5 per cent that of an adult and the sense of taste is developed very little. But what does exist of these senses in the newborn is geared toward the smel
l and taste of breast milk. The act of nursing not only provides nutrients for the baby; it also serves to relieve tension in the breast. So, we could say that the infant is born with an innate capacity to bring pleasure to the mother, by relieving the tension in the breast.

  An infant is also biologically programmed to recognize and respond to faces, and there are few people who fail to find genuine pleasure in having a young baby gazing innocently into their eyes and smiling. Some ethologists have formulated this into a theory, suggesting that when an infant smiles at the caregiver or looks directly into his eyes, the infant is following a deeply ingrained ‘biological blueprint,’ instinctively ‘releasing’ gentle, tender, caring behaviors from the caregiver, who is also obeying an equally compelling instinctual mandate. As more investigators strike out to objectively discover the nature of human beings, the notion of the infant as a little bundle of selfishness, an eating and sleeping machine, is yielding to a vision of a being that comes into the world with an innate mechanism to please others, requiring only the proper environmental conditions to allow the underlying and natural ‘seed of compassion’ to germinate and grow.

  Once we conclude that the basic nature of humanity is compassionate rather than aggressive, our relationship to the world around us changes immediately. Seeing others as basically compassionate instead of hostile and selfish helps us relax, trust, live at ease. It makes us happier.

  Meditation on the Purpose of Life

  As the Dalai Lama sat in the Arizona desert that week, exploring human nature and examining the human mind with the scrutiny of a scientist, one simple truth seemed to shine through and illuminate every discussion: the purpose of our life is happiness. That simple statement can be used as a powerful tool in helping us navigate through life’s daily problems. From that perspective, our task becomes one of discarding the things that lead to suffering, and accumulating the things that lead to happiness. The method, the daily practice, involves gradually increasing our awareness and understanding of what truly leads to happiness and what doesn’t.