The Art of Happiness (16 page)

We resumed therapy.

 

 

 

It seems clear that as a source of happiness, romance leaves a lot to be desired. And perhaps the Dalai Lama was not far off the mark in rejecting the notion of romance as a basis for a relationship and in describing romance as merely “a fantasy ... unattainable,” something not worthy of our efforts. On closer examination, perhaps he was objectively describing the nature of romance rather than providing a negative value judgment colored by his years of training as a monk. Even an objective reference source such as the dictionary, which contains well over a dozen definitions of “romance” and “romantic,” is liberally peppered with phrases such as “a fictitious tale,” “an exaggeration,” “a falsehood,” “fanciful or imaginative,” “not practical,” “without a basis in fact,” “characteristic of or preoccupied with idealized lovemaking or courting,” and so on. It is apparent that somewhere along the road of Western civilization a change has taken place. The ancient concept of Eros, with the underlying sense of becoming one, of fusion with another, has taken on new meaning. Romance has acquired an artificial quality, with flavors of fraudulence and deception, the quality that had led Oscar Wilde to bleakly observe, “When one is in love, one always begins by deceiving oneself, and one always ends up by deceiving others. That is what the world calls a romance.”

Earlier, we explored the role of closeness and intimacy as an important component of human happiness. There's no doubt of this. But if one is looking for lasting satisfaction in a relationship, the foundation of that relationship must be solid. It is for this reason that the Dalai Lama encourages us to examine the underlying basis of a relationship, should we find ourselves in a relationship that is going sour. Sexual attraction, or even the intense feeling of falling in love, may play a role in forming an initial bond between two people, to draw them together, but like a good epoxy glue, that initial bonding agent needs to be mixed with other ingredients before it will harden into a lasting bond. In identifying these other ingredients, we turn once again to the Dalai Lama's approach to building a strong relationship—bas—ing our relationship on the qualities of affection, compassion, and mutual respect as human beings. Basing a relationship on these qualities enables us to achieve a deep and meaningful bond not only with our lover or spouse but also with friends, acquaintances, or strangers—virtually any human being. It opens up unlimited possibilities and opportunities for connection.

A
s our conversations progressed, I discovered that the devel- A opment of compassion plays a far greater role in the Dalai Lama's life than simply a means to cultivating a feeling of warmth and affection, a means of improving our relationship with others. It became clear, in fact, that as a practicing Buddhist, the development of compassion was an integral part of his spiritual path.

“Given the importance that Buddhism places on compassion as an essential part of one's spiritual development,” I asked, “can you more clearly define what you mean by ‘compassion'?”

The Dalai Lama replied, “Compassion can be roughly defined in terms of a state of mind that is nonviolent, nonharming, and nonaggressive. It is a mental attitude based on the wish for others to be free of their suffering and is associated with a sense of commitment, responsibility, and respect towards the other.

“In discussing the definition of compassion, the Tibetan word
Tse-wa,
there is also a sense to the word of its being a state of mind that can include a wish for good things for oneself. In developing compassion, perhaps one could begin with the wish that oneself be free of suffering, and then take that natural feeling towards oneself and cultivate it, enhance it, and extend it out o include and embrace others.

“Now, when people speak of compassion, I think that there is often a danger of confusing compassion with attachment. So when we discuss compassion, we must first make a distinction between two types of love or compassion. One kind of compassion is tinged with attachment—the feeling of controlling someone, or loving someone so that person will love you back. This ordinary type of love or compassion is quite partial and biased. And a relationship based on that alone is unstable. That kind of partial relationship, based on perceiving and identifying the person as a friend, may lead to a certain emotional attachment and feeling of closeness. But if there is a slight change in the situation, a disagreement perhaps, or if your friend does something to make you angry, then all of a sudden your mental projection changes
_;
the concept of‘my friend' is no longer there. Then you'll find the emotional attachment evaporating, and instead of that feeling of love and concern, you may have a feeling of hatred. So, that kind of love, based on attachment, can be closely linked with hatred.

“But there is a second type of compassion that is free from such attachment. That is genuine compassion. That kind of compassion isn't so much based on the fact that this person or that person is dear to me. Rather, genuine compassion is based on the rationale that all human beings have an innate desire to be happy and overcome suffering, just like myself. And, just like myself, they have the natural right to fulfill this fundamental aspiration. On the basis of the recognition of this equality and commonality, you develop a sense of affinity and closeness with others. With this as a foundation, you can feel compassion regardless of whether you view the other person as a friend or an enemy. It is based on the other's fundamental rights rather than your own mental projection. Upon this basis, then, you will generate love and compassion. That's genuine compassion.

“So, one can see how making the distinction between these two kinds of compassion and cultivating genuine compassion can be quite important in our day-to-day life. For instance, in marriage there is generally a component of emotional attachment. But I think that if there is a component of genuine compassion as well, based on mutual respect as two human beings, the marriage tends to last a long time. In the case of emotional attachment without compassion, the marriage is more unstable and tends to end more quickly.”

The idea of developing a different kind of compassion, a more universal compassion, a kind of generic compassion divorced from personal feeling, seemed like a tall order. Turning it over in my mind, as if thinking aloud, I asked, “But love or compassion is a subjective feeling. It seems that the emotional tone or
feeling
of love or compassion would be the same whether it was ‘tinged with attachment' or 'genuine.‘ So if the person would experience the same emotion or feeling in both types, why is it important to distinguish between the two?”

With a decisive tone, the Dalai Lama answered, “First, I think that there is a different quality between the feeling of genuine love, or compassion, and love based on attachment. It's not the same feeling. The feeling of genuine compassion is much stronger, much wider
_;
it has a very profound quality. Also, genuine love and compassion are much more stable, more reliable. For example, if you see an animal intensely suffering, like a fish writhing with a hook in its mouth, you might spontaneously experience a feeling of not being able to bear its pain. That feeling isn't based on a special connection with that particular animal, a feeling of‘Oh, that animal is my friend.' In that case you're basing your compassion simply on the fact that that being also has feeling, can experience pain, and has a right not to experience such pain. So, that type of compassion, not mixed with desire or attachment, is much more sound, and more durable in the long run.”

Moving deeper into the subject of compassion, I continued, “Now in your example of seeing a fish intensely suffering with a hook in its mouth, you bring up a vital point—that it is associated with a feeling of not being able to bear its pain.”

“Yes,” said the Dalai Lama. “In fact, in one sense one could define compassion as the feeling of unbearableness at the sight of other people's suffering, other sentient being's suffering. And in order to generate that feeling one must first have an appreciation of the seriousness or intensity of another's suffering. So, I think that the more fully one understands suffering, and the various kinds of suffering that we are subject to, the deeper will be one's level of compassion.”

I raised the question, “Well, I appreciate the fact that greater awareness of other's suffering can enhance our capacity for compassion. In fact, by definition, compassion involves opening oneself to another's suffering. Sharing another's suffering. But there's a more basic question: Why would we want to take on another's suffering when we don't even want our own? I mean, most of us go to great lengths to avoid our own pain and suffering, even to the point of taking drugs and so on. Why would we then deliberately take on someone else's suffering?”

Without hesitation the Dalai Lama responded, “I feel that there is a significant difference between your own suffering and the suffering you might experience in a compassionate state in which you take upon yourself and share other people's suffering—a qualitative difference.” He paused, and then as if effortlessly targeting my own feelings at the moment, he continued, “When you think about your own suffering, there is a feeling of being totally overwhelmed. There is a sense of being burdened, of being pressed under something—a feeling of helplessness. There's a dullness, almost as if your faculties have become numb.

“Now, in generating compassion, when you are taking on another's suffering, you may also initially experience a certain degree of discomfort, a sense of uncomfortableness or unbearableness. But in the case of compassion, the feeling is much different; underlying the uncomfortable feeling is a very high level of alertness and determination because you are voluntarily and deliberately accepting another's suffering for a higher purpose. There is a feeling of connectedness and commitment, a willingness to reach out to others, a feeling of freshness rather than dullness. This is similar to the case of an athlete. While undergoing rigorous training, an athlete may suffer a lot—working out, sweating, straining. I think it can be quite a painful and exhausting experience. But the athlete doesn't see it as a painful experience. The athlete would take it as a great accomplishment, an experience associated with a sense of joy. But if the same person were subject to some other physical work that was not part of his athletic training, then the athlete would think, ‘Oh, why have I been subjected to this terrible ordeal?' So the mental attitude makes a tremendous difference.”

These few words, spoken with such conviction, lifted me from an oppressed feeling to one of a feeling of the possibility of the resolution of suffering, of transcending suffering.

“You mention that the first step in generating that kind of compassion is an appreciation of suffering. But are there any other specific Buddhist techniques used to enhance one's compassion?”

“Yes. For example in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism we find two principal techniques for cultivating compassion. These are known as the‘seven-point cause-and-effect' method and the 'exchange and equality of oneself with others.‘ The 'exchange-and-equality' method is the technique that you'll find in the eighth chapter of Shantideva's
Guide to the Bodhisattuas Way of Life.
But,” he said, glancing at his watch and realizing that our time was running out, “I think that we will practice some exercises or meditations on compassion during the public talks later this week.”

With this, he smiled warmly and rose to end our session.

Continuing our discussion of compassion in our next conversation, I began, “Now, we've been speaking about the importance of compassion, about your belief that human affection, warmth, friendship, and so on are conditions absolutely necessary for happiness. But I'm just wondering—suppose, let's say, a wealthy businessman came to you and said, ‘Your Holiness, you say that warmth and compassion are crucial for one to be happy. But by nature I'm just not a very warm or affectionate person. To be honest I really don't feel particularly compassionate or altruistic. I tend to be a rather rational, practical, and perhaps intellectual person, and I just don't feel those kinds of emotions. Yet, I feel good about my life, I feel happy with my life the way it is. I have a very successful business, friends, and I provide for my wife and children and seem to have a good relationship with them. I just don't feel that anything is missing. Developing compassion, altruism, warmth, and so on sounds nice, but for me, what's the point? It just seems so sentimental ...”'