I heard this on a popular TV show recently and it set me thinking . "Do you want a life of happiness or Do you want a life with meaning and purpose?" The character goes on to explain why the pursuit of both is futile and how they are two completely distinct paths , two different philosophies.
I agree, I think. In fact, I've been struggling to articulate this myself for quite a while now. In my experience, I've found that the times I'm happiest are not the moments with the most meaning. Happiness, I believe, is a state of contentment and harmony with one's present circumstances. In those moments you have to cut out the baggage of the past and block out the thoughts of future and focus on the step , the smell, the touch , the now!
To some of us, this comes naturally. To others, we will never see it. We think we are happy when things we want, happen. But that's just what we would like to believe. What it really is to our mind, when you get that promotion or win that medal, is a validation of our existence. It's a pacifying of the ego. It is corroboration to our mind's need to believe we have control. I've come to believe, after some reflection, that 'Real Happiness' is neither orgasmic nor exultant. That's muscle and chemicals. That's a very western conception. Happiness must be the mellow realisation that at this moment you are fine with how everything is, that you are not struggling, aching to change the state of how everything around you is.
Meaningfulness, however, is the antithesis of that. In fact it's a whole different ball game. Striving for meaning in one's life means you must keep looking back - to constantly learn - and keep looking forward to constantly create and manipulate circumstance so that you can incorporate whatever it is that you know from experience to mould your life as you desire it. It seems to me a lot more artificial and contrived (if you allow some degree of abstraction) because what you are trying to do is to coerce a particular sequence of events instead of making your self harmonious with what is happening.
Now don't start with me, I'm not saying you should take things as they happen to you. What I mean is, that to allow your mind to be eternally preoccupied with where you are going and where you want to go and how far you've gone can be quite tiresome and often futile. Instead, what if you don't struggle and fight so much. What if, you try to focus on finding a sense of equanimity while doing what you think gives you some sense of satisfaction at the end of the day. Will that make you happy?
Actually, now that I think about it, these two poles represent the deep chasm between Western and Eastern philosophies. Hmm.. Suddenly I think I see the wisdom in our ideology. We're too influenced by western ideas to be free enough to see how our own are actually superior. I need to think about this more before I can confidently write about it. So I will not go into why I think this. So I guess I will end rather abruptly on this note. But if you have any thoughts on this.. Do tell.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Just A Thought..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The conflict obviously arises from the presence of a conscious (less random) individual trying to assert himself in a more random environment. Equanimity is therefore neither constantly achievable (without a lot of effort that is) nor is it perpetual.
'Meaning' is something I find more loosely defined. Could it describe why at certain times we do things that don't make us any happier ? I think not. I think its this disrespect that our civilization has for momentary pleasures (sex or drugs for example) that forbid us from doing things we like.
May be happiness by nature is transitory. What if the feeling of happiness were induced by certain hormones or something you know; in the sense that once your body has used its supply for the day you would have no choice but to be a little sad. Wouldn't then a search for perpetual happiness be a waste ?
There obviously are things to see in this world; and for some reason we have evolved into beings that are able to question and learn. In certain random patterns we are able to find 'beauty' and possibly 'meaning'. May be we should all sink deep into what we see around and have some fun. And if you find something that makes you 'happy', however random and meaningless it might occur to you, I think its a crime not to embrace it.
Siddhartha had become Buddh on such a thought. So its not just a thought.
And Krishna said GEETA to describe lasting happiness thru KARMA, GYAN and BHAKTI.
This generation is reaching all that thru GYAN. We completly lost BHAKTI and staggering on KARMA. Lack of faith in GYAN is confusing us and making us dumb hard disk.
Happyness is the state of mind not the reaction on a favourable situation. It can not be equalized with momentary pleasure.
>> Shyam : True, I did trivialise the title, because It was just a thought, didn't really follow it up and I suppose I'd have to meditate on it in the mountains for years befor I REALLY figure it out.
In retrospect I see that I sound more sure of myself than I actually was / am. My bad.
So like I said, It was just a train of thought !!
Sneha, I tell you write a book, write a book. You can't keep avoiding the inevitable.
Loved your mutual exclusion of purpose and happiness. Life would be so much easier if logic wasn't as random as it is now.
Start writing a book!
:)
To my old friend the kettle :)
I didn't reply to your comment initially cos I needed to actually think about what you were saying.
1) Yes, I see what you mean when you say that perhaps the nature of happiness is that it could be transitory. Perhaps that is so.
2) But, I think what you mean , is the feeling of being high. Of excitement mixed with euphoria. I think i'd like to define happiness (and I've felt this very transiently ) as something not nearly as dramatic. But veering more towards contentment and harmony. A slight feeling of 'hey, life is actually good' .. not 'this is soo awesome', or anything like that.. You get my drift.
If that's the case, then maybe it's not necessary that it needs to be transitory. I can imagine, with much effort ofcourse, learning how to brave storms and highs with a certain sense of balance - with equanimity like i said.
And I think in part you are echoing what I said... That to you 'happiness' takes precedence over 'meaning' ... but we should actually talk about this sometime :) might make for an interesting conversation.
And helmet, If you really meant that seriously, I can't thank you enough da.. Really, if I ever am crazy enough to write a book (I'm finding it hard to just write that because I'm terrified by how much the idea actually appeals to me and how I might never have enough talent for it) It will say on the first page,
"To the funny, inspiring and ever so smart Helmet - Thanks for planting the seed in my head. Let's hope you haven't backed the wrong horse!"
But then I'm getting WAAAAY ahead of myself :P
At the very least, you made my day!
I know I've joined the party just a little late, but my two bits:
I'm not so sure the two ("happiness" and "meaning", or the pursuits of happiness and meaning) are as exclusive. Often finding meaning or a purpose in what you're doing can lead to happiness (and often of a more lasting sort than the the transitory feelings of happiness that things can give us).
Also, settling into a state of equanimity (and hence being "happy" with) as regards our circumstances is also an extreme struggle, and runs against the grain of all that we've learnt in our lives, which is to go out and seek newer experiences etc etc. Being able to reverse that and settle into a zone where you can say that you're content with the way things are would be (I imagine) a harder battle to fight than if you were to go out and struggle, searching for it.
I'm sure you've read about this over the years: the people of Iceland (and similarly remote, "closed" (by the rest of the world's standards) communities around the world) have repeatedly professed that they're the happiest. This happens, I imagine, because of exactly what you're talking about - being at peace with one's circumstances and surroundings, and not wanting to change the way things are.
Considering human existance has lasted an infinitesimally small time, and that 80 percent of all matter in the world is unobservable and undetectable and can only be known by the assumption of a flat universe, the whole question of 'meaning and purpose' to life, is ultimately inane if assessed independent of the question of happiness of human beings. And if one's happiness is then given any importance, assuming one is just as good as any other one, then the only rational doctrine is utilitarian.
Post a Comment