The Meaning of Happiness

[Guest guest]

 

Good Morning Dennis,

This is not to pre-empt your study but I am having

'not-happiness' trying to wireless network our

computers at home so that my wife and I can be on-line

at the same time. As a consequence we keep losing our

connection so I am sending this while we are working

correctly.

 

By happy chance, I had been asked to direct a study

day last Saturday to which I had given the title. ‘Do

not move in order to touch Me’ which is a quote from

one of Marsilio Ficino’s letters; the day was based on

a study of four of his letters. Two of these in

particular relate to ‘happiness’.

People may not think that it is non-dual teaching on

first reading but, in the second letter that I am

posting below, he is giving a ‘Neti, neti’ approach to

understanding 'happiness'. If one takes into account

the context in which he wrote, that is Renaissance

Italy, it is possible to peel away the qualified

non-dualism that he appears to be presenting. I am

posting it here so that members may save it for

reference if they wish..... I would suggest that it is

too long for this discussion. He directs this letter

to Lorenzo de’Medici who was his main pupil and one

who exampled best his vision of the dignity of man.

I am posting the shorter letter first as people may

give up on the length of the other. We used this

shorter letter to end the day as it needed to be heard

without further comment.

Ultimately he is proposing that the intellect is

unable to know ‘God’…Absolute….fully while direct

experience is the fruit of ‘will’ cleansed by

discrimination. Ultimately also, he is directing us to

the same conclusions as presented by the Kena

Upanishad. Hence we may ask 'whose will is it' in

accordance with the first word of that upanishad.

 

I hope that they are of interest to people and I hope

soon to be freed by discrimination from non-happiness

with wireless routers, and from the happiness when it

works properly,

 

Best wishes

 

ken

 

LETTER ONE

'In the midst of evils there is no refuge, unless it

be with

the highest good’

 

Marsilio Ficino to his friends: greetings.

 

Tragedies truly lament the wretched fate of mortals;

but fate also brings about their truest tragedy. A

tragedy is an imaginary life of men; but the life of

men seems to be their truest tragedy. Leaving aside

for the moment those utterances of orators, poets and

philosophers in which every single evil and trouble of

mankind is enumerated, let me now briefly express the

full misery of our human race with a single instance:

those who are commonly regarded as the happiest of men

are usually the most miserable.

According to philosophers there are three kinds of

life: the first is dedicated to study, the second to

action and the third to pleasure. Those who in any one

of these lives are thought to be at the height of

happiness are generally in the depth of misery.

Certainly those who in the eyes of the world appear to

excel in the study of truth are often more than anyone

else locked in an insoluble dilemma of uncertainty.

For while they have been inquisitively eager to learn

every single thing and to make bold public statements

on each, they have quite rightly learned to have

doubts about all this; and since they believe they

have no one superior or equal to them, they have no

one left whom they may trust or consult. O foolish

wisdom. O knowledge more confusing than all ignorance.

Solomon, the wisest of all men according to divine

authority says that such knowledge brings toil and

disappointment. Paul the Apostle asserts that God

holds this wisdom to be unwisdom. ‘The prophet Isaiah

declares that the thinking based on this wisdom is

judged by God to be vanity.’ This seems properly to

apply to those who hope to see true things in

something other than the light of truth itself like

someone who, captivated by the light of the mind

believes he sees the colours of things not in the

splendour of the sun but by the light of the eye

alone.

Next, those who are considered to have reached the

highest rank in active life really hold that position

in suffering, and when they are said to have most

power, then are they most in servitude, Finally, those

who too readily yield to pleasures often fall into

torments, and when they seem to be gorging themselves

as much as they can, they are desperately hungry and

thirsty. O miserable fate of mortals, fate more

miserable than misery itself! Where shall we wretches

flee, if we are ever to escape from our misery? To the

philosophy of the Sophists, ever eager for new

knowledge? Or to power? Or pleasure?” Alas, we already

fly far too often to these, but in vain. The proud

philosophy of the Sophists entangles us in most

troublesome questions. Power casts us into the most

acute and perilous bondage. Lastly pleasure, which is

brief and false afflicts us with suffering, which is

long and real.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile, if we wish to attain

what we are seeking, to flee only to that which does

not flee anywhere. But that alone cannot flee anywhere

which cannot be moved anywhere: since it fills the

universe. However, is there any need even to be moved

to that which is not moved anywhere, which is present

everywhere in every single thing? Then let us not be

moved or distracted by many things, but let us remain

in unity as much as we are able, since we find eternal

unity and the one eternity, not through movement or

multiplicity, but through being still and being one.

But what is that one, friends? Come on then, say what

it is. Is it not that self-same good which fills the

universe?’ For nothing can be found which is not good

in the presence of the good itself. It is the good

itself, do you not see? It is the good itself which

all things seek, since all things are from that good.

And for this reason every single thing is perfected

through that good to the extent that each strives to

hold to it. But we can hold fast to the good, it seems

to me, only through love of the good, since it is the

very nature of the good to be sought after; and the

reason for its being sought after is that it is good.

Moreover, as soon as we love what is wholly good for

us, we cleave to it, since love itself is something

good. nearest of all to the highest good, as it is the

flame of the good; and wherever the flame of the good

burns most fiercely, there its light shines most

clearly.

What more? If God is the good itself, and the light of

the good, and the love of the light of the good, I beg

you.. friends, let us love, let us love before all

else the good which is light and the light which is

good. For thus we shall not merely love our God we

shall delight in loving Him, for God Himself is love,

love itself is God. Therefore first and foremost let

us burn with that love, without whose heat nothing has

heat, that we may reflect, according to our desire,

the blessed light of Him without whose splendour

nothing has light! Come, friends! Let us rest in that

which never recedes and there we shall ever remain.

Let us serve the one Master of all, who serves no one,

so that we are not enslaved by anything, but are the

masters of everything. Let us delight in God if we

can, and we can if we will, for through the will is

the delight and the delight is in the will. Let us

delight, I say, in that which alone fills the

infinite; thus alone shall we be completely filled,

thus alone shall we rejoice fully and truly. For where

the good abounds without defect, there delight is

experienced without pain, and everywhere joy to the

full.

 

LETTER TWO

 

What happiness is; that it has degrees; that it is

eternal

 

Marsilio Ficino to the magnanimous Lorenzo de’ Medici:

greetings.

 

At Careggi recently, when you and I had discussed at

length many aspects of happiness, we eventually

arrived through reason at the same conclusion. You

then perceptively discovered fresh proofs why

happiness lies in the action of will rather than the

action of intellect. You wanted to set down that

discussion in verse, and wished me to do so in prose.

You have just fulfilled your duty with an elegant

poem, and so, God willing, I will now carry out my

task as briefly as possible.

There are reckoned to be three kinds of human good.

These are of course the benefits of fortune, of the

body and of the soul. The benefits of fortune consist

in wealth, honour, favour and power. And so to begin

at the beginning; wealth is not the highest good, as

Midas believed, for it is sought and acquired not for

its own sake but for the convenience of the body and

soul. Nor are honour and favour the highest good, as

Augustus used to say, since they are at the discretion

of another and are often not experienced by us; and

very often, they are bestowed or withdrawn

irrespective of merit. Nor is power the highest good,

as Caesar maintained, since the more people we

control, the more acutely are we harassed by worries,

the more dangers we are subject to, the more men and

the more business we have to serve, and the more

enemies we have.

The benefits of the body consist in strength, health

and beauty. Strength and health are not the supreme

good, as Milo of Crotona seemed to think, for we are

cast down by the most trifling discomforts; nor is

beauty, so much honoured by Herillus the Sceptic. No

one, however beautiful, could live content in this

alone, and beauty is a benefit for others rather than

for the beautiful themselves.

Some benefits belong to the irrational and others to

the rational part of the soul. The benefits of the

irrational part are the keenness of the senses and

their enjoyment. Aristippus thought that the highest

good lay in both of these. We believe that happiness

lies in neither; not in keenness of sense, for in this

we are surpassed by many animals and a keen sense

generally disgusts as often as it delights; nor does

the highest good consist in the enjoyment of the

senses, for this is preceded by longing, accompanied

by doubt and followed by regret. One short pleasure is

purchased by much prolonged pain. And the intensity of

this kind of pleasure lasts only as long as the

demands of the body; consider how drink is sweet only

as long as one is thirsty. But every demand of the

body is a kind of annoyance. Sensual pleasure,

therefore, because it is frequently mixed with its

opposite, that is pain, is neither pure nor true, nor

does it satisfy. And if anyone says that there are

some sensual pleasures which do not spring from the

demands of the body, I reply that these are so weak

that no one finds any happiness in them. Indeed, let

no one venture to ascribe happiness to that state

which consists of the keenness and delight of the

senses, since this state is false, fleeting and

anxious. Trifling amusements do not satisfy the soul,

which by natural inclination seeks finer things.

Some good qualities of the rational part of the soul

are said to be natural, such as a keen intellect,

memory and a bold and ready will. Happiness is not in

these, for used well they are indeed good, but badly

used they are evil. Other good qualities of the

rational part of the soul, such as the moral and

reflective virtues, are acquired. Is happiness found

in moral conduct, as the Stoics and Cynics believe?

Certainly not, for the practice of moral virtues such

as moderation and endurance is full of toil and

difficulty. We will not find the goal we seek in toil,

but in rest, for we are endlessly busy to enjoy

leisure, and wage war to live in peace. Besides, right

conduct is never sought for its own sake but put to

use, like a medicine, for cleansing and calming the

mind. Neither is Epicurean peace the ultimate goal.

For the use of a still mind is the contemplation of

truth, as the use of a clear sky is to admit sunlight.

Does happiness then reside in the virtues of

reflection, such as the contemplation of truth?

Certainly it does. But there is, so to speak,

contemplation of different kinds: sub-celestial,

celestial and super-celestial. Democritus set as his

goal the first of these. Anaxagoras was not satisfied

with this, because the celestial is higher than the

sub-celestial, but he was willing to be content in the

contemplation of the celestial for, he said, he was

born to contemplate that, and heaven was his homeland.

But Aristotle disagreed with this because the

consideration of the super-celestial seemed to him

altogether more deserving. He thought happiness

consisted in the highest activity of the highest power

directed to the highest purpose. The soul trapped in a

body is able to consider these things in one way, and

the soul which is free in another. Aristotle believed

that man in the first state is happy, but our Plato

denied this, since consideration of the divine in this

life is always mixed with uncertainty of intellect and

unsteadiness of will. So, according to Plato, true

happiness is the property of the soul which, when

freed from the body, contemplates the divine. Both

angels and God are accounted divine. Avicenna and Al

Ghazzali seem to maintain that the soul will be happy

in contemplating angels. The Platonists refute this

for two reasons. The first is that it is the nature of

our intellect to look for the cause of things, and

then the cause beyond this cause. For this reason, the

search of the intellect never ceases, except it

discovers the cause behind which there is no cause,

but is itself the cause of causes, and that is God

alone. The second reason is that the desire of the

will cannot be satisfied by any good so long as we

think that some other good remains beyond; therefore

it is only satisfied with that good beyond which there

is no other. What else is this but God? Therefore in

God alone may the search of the intellect and the

desire of the will come to rest. The happiness of man

therefore consists in God alone, from which it follows

that nothing can rest except in its own cause. And

since God alone is the real cause of the soul it rests

in God alone. But we discussed these things more fully

in the Theology of the Immortality of Souls.

However, there are two activities of the soul in its

relationship to God, for it sees God through the

intellect and it rejoices in the knowledge of Him

through will. Plato calls the vision ambrosia, the

joy, nectar, and the intellect and will, twin wings by

which we may fly back to God, as though to our father

and homeland. This is why, he says, when pure souls

ascend to heaven they feed at the divine table on

ambrosia and nectar.

In that happiness the joy surpasses the vision. For as

we find more merit with God in this life by loving Him

than by searching for Him, so the reward in the next

life is greater for loving than searching. We find far

more merit by loving than by searching for many

reasons. First, because no one in this life truly

knows God. But a man truly loves God, no matter how he

understands Him, if he despises everything else for

His sake. Second, just as it is worse to hate God than

to be ignorant of Him, so it is better to love Him

than to know Him. Third, we may make ill use of the

knowledge of God, for instance through pride. We

cannot misuse the love for Him. Fourth, the man who

looks for God pays Him no tribute, but he who loves

Him yields to God both himself and all he possesses.

So it is that God gives Himself to the lover rather

than the investigator. Fifth, in investigating God, we

take a long time to make very little progress, but by

loving Him we make much progress in a very short time.

The reason love unites the mind with God more swiftly,

closely and firmly than cognition is that the power of

cognition lies mainly in making distinctions but the

power of love lies in union. Sixth, by loving God, not

only do we experience greater joy than by seeking Him

out, but we are made better people. For these reasons

we may conclude that the reward of loving is greater

than that of human enquiry.

It befits the lover to enjoy and rejoice in the

beloved for that is the aim of love, but it befits the

seeker to see. Thus joy in a happy man surpasses

vision. Besides we desire to see in order to rejoice;

we do not seek to rejoice in order to see. We can find

the cause for our desire to see, but we cannot find

the cause for our desire to rejoice, other than the

very joy itself, as though it is desired for its own

sake. We do not desire simply to see, but to see those

things that make us rejoice, in a way that makes us

rejoice. Nature herself never rejects any joy, but6

she sometimes rejects cognition, and indeed she

rejects life7 too if she thinks that it will be very

burdensome; so that delight is not only the seasoning

of cognition but also of life itself. When this is

removed everything seems tasteless. Joy is richer than

cognition, for not every man that knows rejoices, but

those who rejoice necessarily know. Just as nature

considers it worse to suffer misery than ignorance, so

it is better to rejoice than to know. And just as

nature always and everywhere avoids pain on its own

account and everything connected with it as being the

greatest evil, so she pursues pleasure on its own

account, and other things connected with it, as being

the highest good. Since the power of cognition, as I

have said before, lies mainly in making distinctions,

but the power of love lies in union, we are united

more closely with God through the joy of love than

through cognition, for joy transforms us into beloved

God. Just as it is not the man who sees the good, but

he who desires it, that becomes good, so likewise the

soul becomes divine, not by considering God but by

loving Him; as timber becomes fire because it draws

heat, not light, from the flame. Hence, since the soul

is not goodness itself what is good for it must be

sought outside its own nature. It follows that a turn

of the will, so that will is directed towards what is

outside, is more truly based on goodness itself than

an intellectual concept which remains something purely

internal. For the intellect grasps the object by a

kind of imagery, but will strives to transfer itself

to its object by natural impulse. Desire, which is

wide-ranging and continual, is rooted in being since

all created things are always desiring something.

Cognition acts through images that are received; it is

the property of few beings and is intermittent.

Therefore the enjoyment of goodness is more

substantial through the medium of desire than through

the vision of cognition.

If God were to separate the mind from the will and

keep the two apart, the mind might seem to retain its

previous form, for it would still be a form of reason;

but the will might change its form since it would be a

desire lacking the power to choose, a property of

reason. But the mind would not enjoy any further good

at all; it would be like a creature without taste;

nothing would please it; it would find nothing good,

nor would it be agreeable to itself or anything else.

But will would continue to enjoy to the full some

goodness of its own. Therefore enjoyment of the

highest good seems to be the property of will rather

than intellect. The end of movement, that is

happiness, rightly pertains to will, since that is the

aim of movement at its outset. The intellect,

understanding things, not so much through their nature

but rather through its own, seems to draw things

towards itself and for that reason it cannot really be

said to move the soul. Since will desires to perceive

things as they are in themselves, it draws the soul to

things outside itself; and therefore it is will that

is the origin of movement. Moreover the end of all

movement is outside the soul but is finally connected

to the soul as form. Through will the soul greatly

rejoices in this end, for the labourer is worthy of

his hire. The concern and impulse to attain the good

and to avoid evil are based on desire. The will

receives a greater reward from God than the intellect,

not only because it enjoys Him more fully, but also

because the discovery of happiness belongs to will.

The more ardently a man loves, the happier he becomes

in that he approaches the very substance of happiness

itself. What shall we add to this? Since far more

people can love God ardently than can know him

clearly, the way of love is safer to mankind and far

more suitable for the infinite good, which wishes to

impart itself to as many as possible.

So it is through will that happiness is attained.

Again, what more? Free movement is the property of

reasonable beings, and because it is free a man may

therefore advance beyond any finite limit whatever, to

achieve all that he deserves, so that he can rise

above the bliss of many of the angels; indeed, we can

rise above them by loving and rejoicing rather than by

apprehending. Therefore, by cognising God, we reduce

His size to the capacity and understanding of our

mind; but by loving Him we enlarge our mind to the

immeasurable breadth of divine goodness. By the first

we bring God down to our own scale, by the second we

raise ourselves to God. For our cognition is measured

by our capacity to understand; but we love Him not

only as far as we perceive Him but also as far as we

may conceive His divine goodness extending beyond what

we can clearly see. When dimly and feebly we look into

the depth of God’s infinity, our love burns warmly and

eagerly and so does our joy. Vision is not the measure

of joy as some believe, for he who sees little may

love much and vice versa.

Finally, the highest good for the soul is what

satisfies it, but it is not really satisfied with its

own vision of God. For the vision perceived by the

eyes of the soul is a created thing and limited by

degrees of perfection, just as the soul is. Yet the

soul is never satisfied with any created or finite

good. So vision is not the highest good. The soul is

satisfied by the God who is seen, rather than by the

seeing of Him. The enjoyment of the good in sensual

perception arises not because the good moves sense but

because sense is reflected, turned towards and

diffused in the good which is presented to it. This

spiritual turning and diffusion is delight, as we

explained in our book on delight. Thus, even for the

mind which has been separated from the body, so to

speak, the enjoyment of God does not primarily arise

because God reveals Himself to the mind, which in any

case is an act of God rather than our own, but it

arises because the mind turns to God, and this is joy.

It should not be thought that the soul turns to the

vision of God to rest in that, but turns rather to the

God who is seen; it desires the vision for what is

seen which becomes joined to the soul as form. In the

same way there is no relish in the tasting of a

flavour, but in the flavour that has been tasted. A

craving does not have an imaginary object but a real

one; otherwise the desire might be appeased by

remembering or imagining the good when it is absent.

The vision of God is imaged within us and, as I said

before, is limited. For this reason an act of will,

which is the turning towards and diffusion of the

substantial into the infinite God, partakes more of

the infinite than an act of intellect, which is

conception of God according to the mind’s capacity.

Therefore God is the greatest good. Bliss is the

enjoyment of God and we enjoy God through will.

Through will we move towards God by loving Him, and by

being joyful we are enlarged and turned towards Him.

Different souls enjoy different virtues and different

ideals of God, and each excels in that virtue in which

he particularly delights in this life and which he has

followed to the best of his ability. All men, however,

enjoy God in His fullness for in these many ideals He

remains one. The men who best possess God are those

who have the best ideal of Hint Each man understands

the wholeness of God according to his capacity and

enjoys Him according to his love. For this reason, as

Plato said, there is no envy in the choir of Heaven.

Because the happiest thing of all is to possess the

object of one’s love, whoever lives in the possession

of what he loves, lives content and satisfied. For if

two lovers share their enjoyment with one another,

each will rest content in the possession of the

beloved and neither will worry that the other may love

someone more beautiful. Moreover, although in that

respect some have more capacity than others, yet each

finds fulfilment according to the limit of his

capacity, so that he desires nothing beyond that. Let

me add that any man who yields by loving desire to the

will and order of divine justice, yields most

willingly.

The blessed soul can never be removed from God. For

that cannot be done by force. Where is the force that

can be inflicted on a soul enveloped in the infinite

power of God? Nor will the soul leave willingly, for

the will is not moved to anything except by reason of

the good, and once it has cleaved to that which is the

principle of all goodness and understands it it is

never moved from there to anything else. And since it

is the nature of goodness to direct the force of

desire towards itself, it follows that infinite

goodness does so everlastingly. Again, since will

finds rest in anything according to its measure of

goodness, in infinite goodness it finds infinite rest.

But if the soul, even while involved in the movement

of the body, chooses the happiness that is free from

all change, it will do so far more when it is beyond

movement. Nor can the lower parts of the soul divert

the higher ones from this state, since the lower will

yield to the higher for ever, when the soul turns

toward the infinite existence of God.

Lastly, if ever the soul had to be separated from this

state, either the soul would not realise it, in which

case being ignorant of God it could not be happy; or

else it would know, in which case it could not be

happy either, for it would be sick and afraid.

Therefore, he who once finds happiness in God finds it

forever. Read happily, happy Lorenzo, what your

Marsilio Ficino has written here about happiness, much

of which you discovered yourself. The subject is

treated briefly here as befits a letter, but more

thoroughly in the books on Love and on Theology.

The end. Praise be to God.

Farewell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

 

Thanks for your Marsilio Ficino contributions. I am aware of his Renaissance

contribution to the spirit of non-duality and spreading the word of Plato -

the publisher of his work in the UK was one of my teachers at SES (who

translated them from the Latin) for a while. I must confess, though, I find

his flowery style somewhat tedious and have never actually read very much. I

feel I want someone to extract the essence and summarise what he said on a

given topic in a few concise sentences. Very lazy I know and I am not asking

for any sympathy.

 

Anyway I did read or at least browse most of this, since you had kindly

taken the trouble to scan it in. There are certainly some relevant points

there. For the benefit of those who simply gave up, here is one short

passage that I particularly liked:

 

"... the keenness of the senses and their enjoyment. Aristippus thought that

the highest good lay in both of these. We believe that happiness lies in

neither; not in keenness of sense, for in this we are surpassed by many

animals and a keen sense generally disgusts as often as it delights; nor

does the highest good consist in the enjoyment of the senses, for this is

preceded by longing, accompanied by doubt and followed by regret. One short

pleasure is purchased by much prolonged pain. And the intensity of this kind

of pleasure lasts only as long as the demands of the body; consider how

drink is sweet only as long as one is thirsty. But every demand of the body

is a kind of annoyance. Sensual pleasure, therefore, because it is

frequently mixed with its opposite, that is pain, is neither pure nor true,

nor does it satisfy. And if anyone says that there are some sensual

pleasures which do not spring from the demands of the body, I reply that

these are so weak that no one finds any happiness in them. Indeed, let no

one venture to ascribe happiness to that state which consists of the

keenness and delight of the senses, since this state is false, fleeting and

anxious. Trifling amusements do not satisfy the soul, which by natural

inclination seeks finer things."

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Dennisji and other respected members,

 

<<To this extent, I agree with what R. S. Mani said in his 'Doubt on Iswara'

 

<<<<"What we actually seek is not happiness i.e. vishaya-ananda, but bliss or

 

 

 

<<I don't disagree with the essence of what is said here but the first part of

 

the statement gives, I think, the wrong impression and the second part is

 

potentially misleading. What it implies is that what we normally call

 

happiness is not the real thing. This is not so. Happiness is happiness,

 

whether you call it bliss, Ananda or anything else. Yes, whenever we

 

normally experience it, it is usually short-lived and invariably attributed>>

 

 

 

Happiness as understood by common people, has degrees. For example, when one

wins a lottery for 50 dollars, he does feel happy, but when the same fellow wins

a lottery for say 50000 dollars, the happiness he feels is definitely not of the

same degree of happiness that he feels when he wins the lottery for 50 dollars.

And that “happiness” is also different from person to person. In the case of

Ananda, there is no degree. Is there any degree in whatever we all experience in

deep sleep? One cannot compare his experience in deep sleep with the deep sleep

experience of another person. Ananda is homogenous, whereas the so called

happiness we enjoy from sensuous pleasures diminishes as it not only depends on

time, place and objects, but also on the experiencer itself, as his ability to

experience the happiness changes depending on his mood. So, the loukika or

worldly happiness is not real and it is in this sense that I used the words

“real happiness”.

 

Ananda does not depend on any prvruthi, as it is our Swaroopa itself. It is not

to be obtained or attained, as it is not the result of any prvruthi (action) or

nivruthi (running away from action). Bhagvan Shankaracharya says “mokshsya

nithyatwad anarabhyatwam” (G.6 Intr), i.e. Moksha being eternal cannot be the

production of any action. Whereas we (Again Not Advaitins, if I may say so)

think the happiness is something we have to work for.

 

Another point that I would like to mention (I may be wrong) is “Ananda” is a

“experienceless experience” as against “so called happiness” where the sense

organs and the mind are present. The filtering by the mind plays a very

important part in “loukika happiness or worldly happiness” whereas for Ananda

this Filtering has no effect, i.e. Ego is very much there but it is indifferent

i.e. Udaseenaha over the filtering by the mind. For people with no knowledge of

Self, it is this filtering of the mind of what the sense organs perceives

decides what is conducive to one’s happiness and this filtering is not same for

all, as it depends on the notions stored in one’s memory. The problem is it

seems that the common people do not know that happiness and pleasure are

entirely two different things; the latter requires the presence of the sense

organs and the mind, whereas the former is the “absence of the effect of the

mind”. It is not possible to be at an “Egoless” state, unless the Jiva leaves

the mortal body and after that also what happens, one does not know. What is

required is for the Ego to delearn whatever it has learnt, i.e. the notions it

has gathered from time immemorial (“Naisargika: mithyaprathayaroopa:” etc. S.B.

Intr.4) *i.e. this superimposition (on the pure soul or Self) taking the form of

the illusory idea of Jiva, one has to do things and enjoy results from them, is

very well known and within the experience of all. For removing this cause of

evil and realizing the One Self or only Self, are all the Vedantas i.e.

Upanishads begun*. This means the Knowledge of Self, as Sat Chit and Anantha,

therefore, Poorna and lacks nothing and therefore Ananda, through the Upanishads

alone helps to recognize one’s Swaroopa itself as Ananda which is nothing but

Moksha (definitely not after death).

 

In fact it is not the world or one’s body, mind and intellect, (grouped as Idam)

that comes in the way or obstructs one’s Ananda, but his ignorance of his real

swaroopa.

 

My very little knowledge of Advaita prompted me to write all the above, and my

“understanding” may require to be corrected.

 

Respectful regards and Hari Om

 

R.S.Mani

 

 

 

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

To the vast majority of people in the world, the topic of happiness is both

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

I have just started reading the latest batch of comments (I receive the

digest rather than individual posts) but will be out for most of the day.

Accordingly, I cannot make any responses that may be necessary until tonight

or tomorrow. To be going on with, then, here is the third and final part of

the trilogy!

 

The Meaning of Happiness - Part 3

 

Desire for Objects

 

We can look at the process in more detail through the consideration of

material objects as a supposed source of happiness. Most of us will have

experienced the situation of desiring something to such an extent that much

of our spare-time thoughts were devoted to thinking about it, how to go

about getting it, what it would be like to have it etc. And, unsurprisingly,

if we did finally obtain it, it is very likely, for a short time at least,

there was a feeling of genuine happiness. Unfortunately, we will certainly

have also discovered that the feeling did not last.

 

Suppose, for the sake of an example, we say that X very much wants a

surfboard. He lives close to the sea and spends hours watching others

surfing, envying their control, poise and wishing he were feeling the

excitement etc. Then, one day Y has a serious accident in a particularly

large wave. Y decides he never wants to surf again (which he couldn't do

anyway until all of his fractures have healed) and gives his board to X, who

is now blissfully happy.

 

There are several points that may be made regarding this example. First, the

happiness could not in any sense have been in the surfboard. Many people

(e.g. me!) would never even want one and would feel no particular positive

emotion to receive it. Even Y will now probably feel only negative emotions

towards it. Happiness cannot be in any object. If it were, the manufacturer

of such objects would rule the world. The increase in prosperity in the west

over the past century has given us material possessions beyond the dreams of

previous generations but it hasn't brought about any increase in happiness.

People in the third world, without even electricity to fuel many of the

things that we now consider essential, are frequently happier than we are.

And money is nothing more than a means for obtaining objects.

 

Also, even though Y was presumably made happy by the surfboard when he

originally obtained it, he is clearly no longer made happy by it. And if X

were to be given another surfboard the next day by his favourite aunt, he

would not be likely to be twice as happy. In fact, he might well feel a bit

aggrieved.

 

And, if the surfboard were taken away. X could find something else the next

minute, which could bring equivalent happiness.

 

Secondly, what we want is itself only an idea, a product of our own

particular genetic make up and environmental upbringing. X may want a

surfboard but Z, from a family that spent time listening to music rather

than going out to play sports, may well want a violin. What I want, and what

I think that I need, depends upon who I think I am.

 

Thirdly, the idea (of what I want or need) is only a thought and we cannot

choose to have thoughts - they simply 'arise'. And we are not our thoughts

or our emotions.

 

Fourthly, the happiness that results when the desire for the surfboard is

satisfied does not last. As soon as we get used to having the desired

object, we are back to our 'baseline state' of normality and ready for the

next desire to kick in. There is also a tendency, as we grow older, to

supplant the trivial desires of childhood (e.g. for a piece of colourful

wrapping paper) for more sophisticated ones (BMWs, holiday homes in the

Bahamas or whatever). So, if we wish to be as happy as possible, a good

suggestion to begin with is to keep our desires as simple as possible so

that they can easily be satisfied.

 

The tendency of today's society is continually to try to impose the latest

fashions upon us so that we are continually wanting something new. Is it

surprising that we seem to be less happy now than in previous generations?

 

Our usual state is that we feel limited and insecure - i.e. we believe we

are the ego. When we desire something, we have the feeling that we lack the

desired object, that somehow we are incomplete without it. We want to feel

'full-filled' and complete. We identify with the desired object and

mistakenly imagine that it will give us this completeness, however

temporary. At the moment of obtaining it, that perceived emptiness is filled

and we feel satisfied and completely ourselves. Momentarily there is nothing

that we want. The phrase 'satisfaction of the desire' is a key one - the

obscuring influence of the desire is no longer there. Obtaining the object,

we feel that we are temporarily made complete. The desire that obscured the

knowledge that we are already complete is lost.

 

We are not looking outwards away from ourselves for some thing that we

perceive as a lack. We are at peace and content in simple knowledge of our

true nature - which is existence, consciousness and happiness. This is, and

was, always our true nature. The imagined limitation and the lack,

manifested as a desire, simply took us away from it. But objects can never

'complete' us in this sense and we know it, even if only subconsciously. As

soon as we look, we find that we still see the objects as separate and the

spell is broken.

 

All that happens in such moments of happiness is that the ego temporarily

disappears, leaving the real Self to shine through. Exactly the same happens

during attention, when we are so intent on a task that we are unaware of

passing time or our surroundings. It happens during dangerous sports, for

the same reason. Providing that we are in control, the need to give all of

our attention to the rock face or the seething rapids means that there is no

place for ego or mental distractions. We are completely in the present.

 

There is no end to desire whilst we consider ourselves to be limited. As one

desire is satisfied another is born, continually adding fuel to the fire and

taking us away from the happiness that we seek. As Swami Dayananda said in

the interview posted to the list in early February, it is not what I want

that is the problem, it is that I want. As long as we continue to perceive

ourselves as limited, as lacking something that will make us complete, we

will continue to search for this elusive (and, of course, non-existent)

something outside of ourselves.

 

And we could never be content with 'limited' happiness. We want the complete

and everlasting variety. This is yet more proof, if more were needed, that

we will never find it in anything in the outside world or in mind, thoughts

or emotions. These are all finite and temporary. Happiness must transcend

time, space and causation; must be beyond mind and intellect; cannot in fact

be in anything outside of ourselves.

 

We must supplant all other desires with the single one of endeavouring to

discover our true nature. This will also have the effect of turning our

attention back towards ourselves instead of outwards to the illusory

external 'things'. Of all desires, the desire for self-realisation is the

highest. Along the way, there are two sources that can reliably remind us of

our true nature - meditation and deep sleep. Meditation is a state of

absence of thoughts, i.e. absence of mind or ego. And in deep sleep, there

is Consciousness only - again no ego. It is those moments when we 'forget

ourselves' when we feel most alive and happy. Only forgetting ourselves

permanently, i.e. eliminating the ego completely, can bring lasting

happiness.

 

The true nature of the Self within is everlasting bliss. When the mind is

switched off, as in deep sleep, this state is temporarily experienced.

Unfortunately it is not consciously realised and, upon awakening, we believe

ourselves to be back in the illusion of our day to day lives where we feel

at the mercy of the supposed events going on around us. When the ego is

dissolved and the unity of the Self is recognised, it will be known that

this bliss is our true nature, our permanent condition.

 

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

Through the unknown, remembered gate

When the last of earth left to discover

Is that which was the beginning;

At the source of the longest river

The voice of the hidden waterfall

And the children in the apple-tree

Not known, because not looked for

But heard, half-heard, in the stillness

Between two waves of the sea.

Quick now, here, now, always--

A condition of complete simplicity

(Costing not less than everything)

And all shall be well and

All manner of things shall be well

When the tongues of flame are in-folded

Into the crowned knot of fire

And the fire and the rose are one.

 

(T. S. Eliot. 'Little Gidding' (Four Quartets). Faber and Faber.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

By the way, the three parts of the topic are now available at my website:

 

www.advaita.org.uk/meaning.htm , happiness.htm and desire.htm .

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

I think your three posts on the meaning of Happiness make an

excellent trilogy. Many of your ideas on the subject agree with my

own. I have a small discomfort though with the attributuion of our

feelings and motives to brain-mechanisms, especially as this seems to

bring in a kind of determinism and denies our freedom to do anything

about them. While the problem of determinism and free-will is a

difficult one to crack, there is still comfort in recognising that a

part of the Divine Will flows through us as our individual wills.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> I have just started reading the latest batch of comments

> (I receive the digest rather than individual posts) but will

> be out for most of the day. Accordingly, I cannot make any

> responses that may be necessary until tonight or tomorrow.

> To be going on with, then, here is the third and final part

> of the trilogy!

>

> The Meaning of Happiness - Part 3

>

> Desire for Objects

>

> We can look at the process in more detail through the

> consideration of material objects as a supposed source

> of happiness......