The Art of Happiness (10 page)

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 returning 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.

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 also that 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 that, “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 that 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 soci ologist 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 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 percent 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 smell 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 smile. 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.

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.

When life becomes too complicated and we feel overwhelmed, it's often useful just to stand back and remind ourselves of our overall purpose, our overall goal. When faced with a feeling of stagnation and confusion, it may be helpful to take an hour, an afternoon, or even several days to simply reflect on what it is that will truly bring us happiness, and then reset our priorities on the basis of that. This can put our life back in proper context, allow a fresh perspective, and enable us to see which direction to take.

From time to time we are faced with pivotal decisions that can affect the entire course of our lives. We may decide, for instance, to get married, to have children, or to embark on a course of study to become a lawyer, an artist, or an electrician. The firm resolve to become happy—to learn about the factors that lead to happiness and take positive steps to build a happier life—can be just such a decision.
The turning-toward happiness as a valid goal and the conscious decision to seek happiness in a systematic manner can profoundly change the rest of our lives.

The Dalai Lama's understanding of the factors that ultimately lead to happiness is based on a lifetime of methodically observing his own mind, exploring the nature of the human condition, and investigating these things within a framework first established by The Buddha over twenty-five centuries ago. And from this background, the Dalai Lama has come to some definite conclusions about which activities and thoughts are most worthwhile. He summarized his beliefs in the following words that can be used as a meditation.

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes when I meet old friends, it reminds me how quickly time passes. And it makes me wonder if we've utilized our time properly or not. Proper utilization of time is so important. While we have this body, and especially this amazing human brain, I think every minute is something precious. Our day-to-day existence is very much alive with hope, although there is no guarantee of our future. There is no guarantee that tomorrow at this time we will be here. But still we are working for that purely on the basis of hope. So, we need to make the best use of our time. I believe that the proper utilization of time is this: if you can, serve other people, other sentient beings. If not, at least refrain from harming them. I think that is the whole basis of my philosophy.

“So, let us reflect on what is truly of value in life, what gives meaning to our lives, and set our priorities on the basis of that. The purpose of our life needs to be positive. We weren't born with the purpose of causing trouble, harming others. For our life to be of value, I think we must develop basic good human qualities—warmth, kindness, compassion. Then our life becomes meaningful and more peaceful—happier.”