Why do we Argue?

Costs vs. Benefits

Arguments often alienate people and friendships can be lost or threatened in the process. We are all rational people; if the costs of alienation were greater than the resulting benefits, we would not argue.

A benefit of argumentation is that we can learn more from arguments (or profound discussions) than from superficial conversations. One of my personal motivations for argumentation is that I am looking for a way to connect with another person. A strong bond develops when two people discover that they see the world in the same way. The discussion also provides an evolution of the viewpoint if there is a consensus about the fundamental premise of the issue. Since there is no need to rationalize the initial opinion, the discussion is focused on developing deeper conclusions. For me, the risk of disagreement has a lower expected cost than the benefit that could be derived by connecting with another human being.

The danger of an argument is that one person can be placed on the defensive and a simple discussion can evolve to the validation of the person's belief system. If the point of the argument becomes a justification of another person's subjective reality, it becomes a very dangerous argument to lose.

Many times it is difficult to realize when an opinion challenges a person’s perception of reality. This mistake happened frequently with a previous boss. When theories were discussed, a potential disagreement had the effect of crushing a series of dominos that supported the fragile structure that rationalized his view of the world.

Confirming a view of reality is only one reason that someone may feel the need to express an opinion. Another reason is impatience. It takes great patience to avoid an argument when one person disagrees strongly with another person's position. If we were truly patient, we could remain silent in order to avoid an argument. Yet many people believe that silence is dishonest because silence can be interpreted as a sign of agreement.

The negative cost of argumentation is usually related to a person’s ego. The ego receives gratification from “being right.” Some people argue only to prove that their opinions are right and other opinions are wrong. These types of arguments are necessary to validate the person’s ego at the expense of others. Unfortunately, the ego does not realize that “being right” does not provide a validation of anything. Instead, it is an insecurity that needs to be overcome. Nothing changes if someone’s opinions are proven “right.” The only thing that changes is that the person who is attacked and placed on the defensive feels alienated and hurt. The relationship between the two debaters is also likely to become damaged as there tends to be a loss of respect and admiration as a result of the attacks. It is very difficult to be around people who always have to be “right” (especially since we do not live in a black and white world where right and wrong are objectively determined for every issue).

The Content of Arguments: Facts vs. Opinions

The content of arguments varies considerably. Sometimes people argue even when they agree because of differences in semantics. If individuals first agreed on their definitions, they would not be arguing. Voltaire said, “ If you wish to converse with me, define your terms… How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition.”

Other times people argue opinions, generalizations or exceptions as though they were facts and thus, they believe there is a right or wrong answer. Facts have right or wrong answers. Yet, opinions (or generalizations and exceptions) have a number of “right” answers.

In the essay, “Karma and Reincarnation,” L.H. Leslie-Smith says, “Obviously, belief has nothing to do with fact. The disbelief of the majority of men cannot make a truth false; and an untrue statement is rendered nonetheless because the whole world believes it to be correct. Nor can our desire that something may be true affect its validity in the least.” In concurrence, Gilbert Murray (in the essay entitled “Failure of Nerve”) stated, “It is obvious, when one thinks about it, that quite often a large number of people who know nothing about a subject will all agree and all be wrong.”

I often think about the content of arguments. Even though we might say that people always argue about facts or opinions, this dichotomy seems too simplistic. There are different types of facts and different types of opinions that completely change the nature of the argument. In utter amazement, I have often watched two people vehemently argue a fact that clearly has a right answer. Undoubtedly, one person is right and the other person is wrong, but the evidence that would prove which argument is correct is not physically present. In turn, these people spend significant time arguing that they are right without the proof that would back up their argument (and some people believe that if they raise their voice, the other person will be intimidated into agreeing). Why don’t these people just use the time to look up the fact on the Internet? No matter how long they fight about the issue, the fact does not change and one person will never be able to convince the other that he or she is right or wrong without presenting the evidence (which seems arrogant and will embarrass someone even though the physical proof is the only resolution). Why would one person think that if he or she talks louder or longer that the other person will concede? And even if the other person gives in, it does not mean that the antagonist is correct.

At the same time, some facts can have two answers that are both right. For instance, someone may attribute a quote to Socrates and another person may attribute the same quote to Plato. Since Socrates did not write down his own beliefs, our primary knowledge of Socrates’ beliefs is related to us through Plato’s words. This issue becomes further complicated because Plato’s works attribute certain words to Socrates, though we can never be certain that Socrates actually spoke those same words. For example, we could say that Socrates said “an unexamined life is not worth living” or we could say that Plato wrote those words in his essay, “The Apology of Socrates.” Since Plato wrote the essay as though he were Socrates, the quote could be attributed to Socrates or Plato. In actuality, it is a fact that Plato wrote those words; it is a fact that the character “Socrates” says those words in the Apology essay; but it is an opinion that Socrates said those same words in real life. Is it a fact that Jesus said, “love your enemies” or did someone else simply attribute those words to Jesus? We can never be absolutely certain even though we may strongly believe that Jesus said those words. Since Jesus did not officially publish anything and since the words were written almost 100 years after he died, we simply have to trust the authenticity of the source (which requires faith instead of proof).

The diverse content of arguments has led to the creation of the following fact-opinion continuum:

Facts: There are absolute facts that have conclusive proof (which are universally accepted) and there are subjective facts that have contradictory proof. Facts have right or wrong answers even though subjective facts can appear similar to opinions.

White Facts: these are indisputable statements that can be proven once the information is presented. People should never argue white facts because there is a right answer that has evidence to support it. The only reason that anyone would argue a white fact is that the information is inaccessible to the person at a certain point in time. It is dangerous to argue white facts because one person can always be proven wrong once the evidence is presented. An example of an argument over a white fact is when a colleague argued that irrespective was not a word. Once the dictionary was presented, he had to admit that he was wrong (which can be embarrassing or humiliating).

Gray Facts: these are statements of fact that have contradictory evidence. There appears to be no right answer if the evidence on both sides is convincing. People who argue gray facts usually argue about which evidence is correct. A gray fact argument can be frustrating because the evidence is inconclusive, so both sides appear to be right. An example of a gray fact argument is when two people argue the cause of a certain disease. One person can present evidence that the disease was caused by one factor and the other person can present evidence that the disease was caused by another factor.

Opinions: Any thought, statement, or belief that does not have a proven answer. Nobody can be right or wrong about an opinion.

White Opinions: A white opinion is a viewpoint that has no right answer subjectively or objectively. An example of a white opinion is the argument about whether to go to a party or the neighborhood bar. One person may believe that the party will be more fun than the bar and another person may believe the opposite. There is no right answer unless the experiment could be controlled so that both activities are experienced simultaneously. However, since one person cannot be at different places at the same time, it is impossible to prove the superior outcome. Even if one person goes to the bar and another person goes to the party, the comparisons are still subjective. White opinions are the easiest arguments to accept differences in beliefs because it is obvious that there is no right answer.

Gray Opinions: A gray opinion is a viewpoint that has no right answer subjectively, but it does have a right answer objectively. The right answer is simply unknown at a particular point in time (but can be proven later). An example of a gray opinion argument is when two people argue over whether a new widget will penetrate the market. One person can have thousands of reasons why it will penetrate the market and another person can have thousands of reasons why it won't penetrate the market. There appears to be no right answer but if the widget is introduced, the answer will be known. After the product’s introduction, the right answer becomes a fact; it either penetrates the market or it fails. There was a right answer objectively but no one knew it at the time of the discussion (of course, if the widget is not introduced the right answer will never be known and if the execution was poor, there could still be further arguments about its penetration). Arguments over gray opinions are the most common arguments and the most productive because a convincing argument could cause the right decision to be implemented.

Black Opinions: A black opinion is a viewpoint that has no right answer subjectively but it does have a right answer objectively even though the right answer will never be known in this lifetime. An example of a black opinion argument is when two people argue over the existence of life after death. There either is life after death or there isn't life after death but neither person knows the right answer and they won’t know the answer even if they argue the issue every day of their lives. Subjectively, one person may believe very strongly that his or her viewpoint is right because these arguments are often based on faith. Black opinion arguments are also very common but very difficult to resolve. Many times black opinion arguments end up threatening another person's view of reality. These arguments are the most dangerous because the viewpoints can touch upon the fundamental belief systems of the people who are arguing. Black opinion arguments can also be the most fascinating because two people are entering unknown territory that will be unknown as long as they live. Black opinion arguments are also more philosophical than any other type of arguments.

Generalizations: these are white, gray and black opinions that are believed by the majority of the population. For example, one person might argue that more people have fun at bars (white opinion) or that most times a new widget is introduced it penetrates the market (gray opinion) or that most people believe in life after death (black opinion). An argument that uses perceived generalizations is extremely common because it appears to give credibility to an opinion. In other words, it makes an opinion appear similar to a fact. However, it can never be proven that the majority of people believe anything unless a poll was taken on every opinion that is discussed and even if the majority believes the opinion, it still doesn't mean that the opinion is right.

Exceptions: An exception is the opposite of a generalization. Many times exceptions are argued as an attempt to disprove a generalization or two people could argue whether the exceptions are really generalizations.

The fact-opinion continuum helps us clarify the essence of an argument. After I developed the framework, I quickly recognized arguments that were futile and I could minimize the discomfort that results from disagreement. For example, when I realize that I am being drawn into an argument about a fact, I just say that I have a policy not to argue facts because the evidence is not currently available; or I delay the discussion (and avoid embarrassment) by saying that I will check my source at a later time. If I notice that the argument is about a “black opinion,” I am more sensitive to the possibility that the other person’s belief systems may be threatened and I can minimize defensiveness by taking a gentler approach (or by using a significant number of qualifiers). It is also important to recognize that some people argue vehemently when their opinions are quite similar. In The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant says “similar people quarrel, and the bitterest wars are over the slightest variations of purpose or belief.”

Arguments vs. Discussions

Not surprisingly, many people believe there is a significant difference between an argument and a discussion. This belief is usually due to a difference in semantics. For arguers, there is no difference between the two. Whenever an issue is discussed, it is defined as argumentation.

Yet in our society, arguments have a negative connotation and discussions have a positive connotation. Therefore, some people simply define positive conversations as discussions and negative conversations as arguments. Others define a topic as a discussion if there is agreement but the same subject is defined as an argument if there is disagreement.

The expression of passion can also redefine a discussion as an argument. Some people are passionate arguers because they feel strongly about everything that they believe in. They can be just as passionate about mundane arguments (such as the arrangement of furniture) as they are about philosophical arguments (such as the existence of a superior being). Some people believe that passion can be used as an attempt to change the other person's opinion. However, this is a futile attempt because other people’s opinions can only be changed with their consent. Consent is based on convincing argumentation and an open mind, rather than by hearing passionate points of view.

Sometimes one person may define a discussion as an argument even when the other person doesn’t realize that he or she is arguing. Non-arguers (which is the majority of the population) find disagreement threatening and arguers think that it is a natural form of conversation. Arguers think that disagreement is healthy and interesting and non-arguers think that it's confrontational and uncomfortable. If we were extremely perceptive, we would argue only with people who liked to argue and we would be patient enough to avoid arguments with people who don't like to argue (though it is difficult to recognize a non-arguer if you're not arguing).

Agreeing to Disagree

Often it is better to agree to disagree than to try to reach consensus. Yet, this plan of action can be impossible to implement if the arguments won't rest without a shared conclusion. This is especially true when people are arguing opinions as though they were facts. Two people should be able to state that there is no right answer so it is perfectly acceptable to disagree, but unfortunately, this tactic is rarely successful. People’s egos get involved and without agreement, they feel alone with their beliefs. Egos force arguers to attach themselves to the outcome of the discussion. If they could feel indifferent about agreement or disagreement, the arguments could rest without consensus.

It may be easier to agree to disagree when there is respect between arguers. Maybe argumentation says less about the characteristics of each individual and more about the relationship between the two people. I only argue with people I respect. It is difficult to share my conclusions with people who are unable to appreciate the information or people who are unable to accept differences in opinions.

Playing Fair

Argumentation has certain rules of fair play but often a serious violation occurs. When individuals feel that they do not have a counterpoint to a particular argument, they verbally launch a personal attack against the other person. Attacking the opposition is expressed with statements such as, “why are you on the defensive?” Obviously during an argument, both people are placed on the defensive at different times; it goes back and forth from defense to offense like a tennis match. This personal attack also implies that being defensive is a negative attribute. However, acting defensively should be expected when another person is on the offensive. For example, if one person accuses another person of being ignorant, defensiveness should be expected. After hearing an insult, individuals will automatically protect their self-image. A lack of defensiveness implies that the person agrees with the statement. If people think positively about themselves and if a statement conflicts with their perceived identity, they should be able to defend themselves without criticism.

Another unfair attack on the opposition is the comment “why do you think that you are always right?” If an arguer does not think that an opinion is “right,” he or she would be arguing a different point. In other words, most people do not argue beliefs that they think are wrong (unless they are just playing the devil’s advocate for the “fun” of it). This particular attack on the opposition usually occurs at the exact moment when someone feels that the argument has been “lost.” This insult is also usually directed toward extremely competent arguers. Their points are strong and hard to discredit so the natural “comeback” is that they need agreement. Ironically, the person who needs agreement is usually the one who initiates the personal attack.

The Greek Sophists were often victims of personal attacks. These philosophers questioned everything and significantly contributed to the field of philosophy. However, they were also extremely skilled at winning arguments and they taught their students how to effectively gain an advantage over their opposition. We are now taught that the Sophists used misleading statements to prove their points. Most admit the Sophists were extremely clever but perhaps they were too effective. It is easier to say that the argument was won due to the “faults” of the victor than to admit defeat.

Socrates and Plato could also be labeled as Sophists because they often obtained agreement on a particular statement and then used this agreement to discredit their opponent’s argument. In other words, they used the arguer’s own words against him. Many would define this style of argumentation as Sophistry because opponents were mislead by being “forced” to agree with conclusions that conflicted with their original opinions. Yet, Socrates and Plato were congratulated for their brilliance while other similar arguers were criticized for misleading their opponents.

There are a million statements that can be used to attack the opposition as a way of avoiding the issues. This is a clever ploy because it diverts attention from the argument and directly hurts the other person, who immediately goes into a defensive mode. The person who is attacked could have had an excellent point before this tactic was employed but the point is soon forgotten because the argument switches to an evaluation of one person’s character.

Win or Lose

Argumentation is a true challenge in life and one of the best ways to learn about new points of view. However, it is important to be able to learn from a healthy discussion without believing that there is only one right answer or conclusion to any topic presented. Arguments can be dangerous if they turn into a “win or lose” situation. If we care about the people who are involved in the discussion, we would not want them to feel like that they have “lost.” Why would we want this pain inflicted on another human being? The most compassionate arguers know how to end a discussion without having its conclusion appear as a “loss” by one of the participants.

In the book, The 72 Names of God, Berg says, “Two people can have opposite opinions and conflicting viewpoints, yet both can be right. Enmity and bitterness occur when people respond reactively to each other, with intolerance to each other’s view…What good is being right if suffering and pain are the cost? What is so terrible about being wrong if personal peace, joy, and contentment are the rewards? It is only the ego that worries itself about being right or wrong.”

We must also avoid argumentation when other people become emotional or when they view their position as a justification for their belief systems. Some people are uncomfortable with disagreement because they believe that a rejection of a particular opinion is the same as a personal rejection and thus, disputes disrupt their need for continual self-validation. We cannot be responsible for increasing or decreasing a person’s self-worth; we just need to know when silence is appropriate or when we should switch the subject by talking about something less controversial. It is insensitive to continue an argument when it is clear that the other person is uncomfortable with the subject matter.

I love to challenge people because that is the way I learn about human nature. For me, it is one of the best forms of education. However, I also know this is a selfish desire for my own personal growth. Not everyone is on the “road less traveled” and not everyone has the goal of self-actualization. Based on body language and eye contact, we need to know when it is time to “turn down the heat.” If a statement sounds threatening, we could turn it into a question because people tend to respond less negatively to questions. Or we could apologize for the discomfort by saying that the discussion was based only on intellectual curiosity and was not meant to imply that there was a right or wrong answer.

I’ve learned the hard way that sometimes people simply believe things without questioning them. I may want to analyze every opinion but others do not. For example, if certain individuals were told that the Bible says, ”an eye for an eye,” they may believe that God believes in revenge and they may never question the ethics of revenge. Personally, I may want to know why someone believes in revenge and I may want to disagree with revenge; but I also need to be sensitive to other people’s preferences to believe in revenge without disagreement.

If individuals do not want to discuss or think about preconceived opinions, or if disagreements are too threatening, or if the viewpoints exist without a logical rationale, we need to have the compassion to let the opinions exist without contention. A discussion involves two people and no one should be forced to talk about something that causes discomfort or embarrassment.

Argumentation is the mutual consent to discuss controversial issues. It is important to remember that all individuals retain the right to express their opinions without being forced to justify their belief systems. Even if we want to discuss the merits of one opinion or another, we cannot force others to do the same. The First Amendment says that all individuals have the right to freely express their opinions; it does not say that these people must be forced to rationalize their opinions without their consent.

Soulmates

Is there really someone for everyone? Does every person find that piece of the puzzle that seems to make the picture complete? Are we really halves of a greater whole? I always believed in soulmates. I actually think that people probably have more than one soulmate in the world, though finding just one is usually missed. Many people simply decide to get married at the appropriate time and if they aren’t dating their soulmate, they compromise and marry someone else. Some people don’t even believe in soulmates. Since they do not believe in a love that transcends all others, they don’t realize that their impatience created an inferior solution.

It takes courage and determination to wait for the “right” person when there is no guarantee that a soulmate will be found. Jenna, a close friend of mine, never believed she would meet her soulmate. “I’m not as confident about soulmates as you are,” she said to me over coffee. “Even though I believe that soulmates exist, I don’t think that I will meet mine. I just need to get married. I can’t spend my life alone so even though I know my boyfriend isn’t my soulmate, I may marry him anyway.” I begged her to be patient, but she wouldn’t listen. Jenna unexpectedly ended the relationship with her boyfriend, and ironically, she met her soulmate only two months later. I’ve never seen two people more in love with each other. Together, it seemed that they had found a secret that nobody else knew about. They were engaged a month after their first date. Even during the struggles of marriage, they were always happy with each other. They loved each other unconditionally.

Soulmates share a special magic between them. Often they feel that they have known each other forever, even if they just recently met. Certain glances, body movements, harmonized gestures or smells seem to ignite feelings of warmth and recognition. Neither person is perfect but they fit perfectly together. When they come together, they feel like they are coming home; and when they unite as one, they feel like they are connected to God or some greater spiritual force in the universe. It’s truly magical, unexplainable and rare. Someone who has found a soulmate relates strongly to these words. Yet for most of us, these words just sound like a fairytale.

“I got married when I was very young,” recalled a business associate. “I never even knew about the concept of soulmates. Thirty years later, I met my soulmate and it was a bond that couldn’t be denied. I sacrificed my marriage vows because I had to be with her. We knew that we could never be married, but it didn’t seem to matter. Just being together was enough. She fulfilled an emptiness in me that I didn’t even know existed. Even though we ended the relationship, I know that I will love her forever. A part of her is always with me.”

The women that I know who strongly believe in soulmates are usually the ones who are still single. Is it because they are waiting for someone who doesn’t exist? Or is it because the real test of waiting for a soulmate is whether a person has the patience to avoid compromise? I think a belief in soulmates requires a comfort with being alone. If the fear of being alone is greater than the perceived benefits of marrying a soulmate, the person can’t survive the hope of delayed gratification. If individuals choose to wait for a soulmate, they may be choosing the fate of being alone forever.

Carmen Harra in her book, Everyday Karma, describes soulmates in the following way: “Before you can find a soulmate, you should understand what a soulmate really is… all of life is a circle and energy flows and transforms throughout the circle. The theme of the circle is also true in our relationships. Each of us is half a sphere and the only way to complete the sphere is through an intimate relationship with another person. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, ‘She or he is my better half.’ We are each halves of a whole and our soulmate is our destined other half. To feel fulfilled and alive, to learn some of your greatest karmic lessons is to have a relationship with another person who melds exactly into your circle, who has the same level of karmic energy, and helps the energy flow within you. The energy of the two halves merge together and have more room to flow; the energy mingles and each of you is given the opportunity to evolve and grow. Finding your soulmate can be a long process. Some people do it at a young age, but for others it can take almost a lifetime. A soulmate is someone with whom you develop a strong affinity because you share the same life purpose. A soulmate is someone who complements you and vice versa. They are a reflection of the things you need to learn, the things that are missing in you. Soulmates are karmically in tune with each other. Within each of us there are pluses and minuses that exist in our souls (our positive energy and qualities and our negative energy and qualities). A soulmate complements and balances the energy you are missing, and you do the same for him or her…Before you can find a soulmate you must do the work to know yourself better. You must identify your road in life, know who you really are, see the good and bad in yourself honestly, and know what your goals and needs are.”

Even though soulmates complement each other, we should not confuse the image of being “two halves of a whole” as being half of a person when we are not with our soulmate. The whole that is created is just greater than the sum of its parts. Each part is “whole” by itself but together they create a more magnificent creation. The unified whole that is created is symbolized by the relationship, not by the merging of two incomplete people. The relationship is a separate entity. Joseph Campbell says, “A marriage is not a love affair… When I have to make a sacrifice, I’m not sacrificing to her, I’m sacrificing to the relationship.”

Furthermore, our partners may have qualities that we don’t have, but we cannot expect that those qualities will counteract our own weaknesses. Our problems cannot be solved by another person. We are the only ones who can develop particular character traits in ourselves; we can’t “borrow” positive qualities from someone else. Compensating qualities can enhance the relationship and they may help us evolve as human beings. Other people can be role models that allow us to develop more desirable personality traits or they may bring out the best in us; but we should never assume that the presence of a strength in one person negates a weakness in another. As a friend explained, “I dated someone who said he was looking for someone organized, which I thought was very strange. I could understand why someone may want to date a person who is compassionate, kind, intelligent and interesting, but why would someone want his partner to be organized? When I asked him about it, he said it was because he was disorganized and he needed someone to organize his life. I told him that if he wanted to be more organized, he should just correct the weakness in himself instead of looking for that particular personality trait in someone else. Silently, I was wondering why he didn’t just marry his secretary. Even though I am extremely organized, I told him that I did not possess that quality. It was just a “test” to see if he could get beyond what I called a ‘character trait possession anxiety.’ Up until that point, our dates were very enjoyable and he openly expressed his attraction for me. However, after that discussion, he never asked me out again. I can’t help thinking that maybe we would still be dating if he thought I was an efficiency expert.”

I wonder why I have always believed in soulmates. I have no personal evidence that they even exist. I have seen a few couples that seemed like they were with their soulmates, but how could I know for sure? Maybe it was just a strong infatuation. Hollywood movies don’t help in eliminating my belief in soulmates. Every time a “chick flick” is on TV, the girl who has given up hope finally meets the man of her dreams. Sometimes when we see fairytale repeated over and over, it feels that the fantasy could actually be real. Are screenwriters writing from their imagination or are they writing about an experience that just doesn’t happen very often?

The concept of soulmates is relatively new because marriages prior to the 20^th century were not always based on love. They were partnerships between families and in the case of royalty they were partnerships between countries. Until the 1960’s, people got married when they barely knew each other. They may have thought they were in love but it is possible that the marriage was based only on infatuation and attraction. By sharing hardships, they learned to like and respect each other, which often turned into profound feelings of love and connection; but it was a different kind of love. If they also happened to be soulmates, it was only the result of luck or coincidence.

If Jenna had married the boyfriend who was not her soulmate, she would never have found the depth of happiness that she shares with her current husband. How many people really wait for this kind of love? Since it is so rare, it hard to believe that it really exists. Yet, there comes a point where there’s no turning back. If Individuals choose to remain alone, they eventually find themselves; and then they understand how difficult it is to connect with someone who can’t appreciate the beauty of what they’ve found.

There are many theories about soulmates. Plato believed they were split apart energy, and others believe that soulmates compensate for whatever is lacking in their partners. Plato’s story says that in the beginning there were circular creatures composed of what are now two human beings. There were three different kinds: male/female, female/female and male/male. The god Zeus then split them apart into two separate individuals (the evidence of the separation is the belly button). However, after they had been split apart, they became committed to embracing each other again in order to reconstitute the original entity. According to the story, we spend our whole lives trying to find and re-embrace with our other halves. In Symposium, Plato states, “man’s original body having been thus cut in two, each half yearned for the half from which it had been severed. When they met, they threw their arms round one another and embraced, in their longing to grow together again.”

In a trance, Edgar Cayce communicated the same concept. He said, “For we find in the beginning that …these two – which we shall speak of as ‘they’ until separated – were as one in mind, soul, spirit, body, and in the first earth’s plane…when the glory of the Father’s giving of the earth’s indwelling of man was both male and female in one. In flesh form in earth’s plane we find…both were confined in the body of the female in their first incarnation…Yet with the experiences as have been brought in that plane and period, we find then the separation of the body.” He then explained that these “twin souls” continually sought to find each other while they are incarnated on earth (interestingly, all fetuses start out as female until hormonal changes instigate physiological alterations that lead to the male anatomy).

Some people believe that soulmates are two individuals who were close in a past life (as spouses, friends or family). An interesting case of this type of soulmate relationship was reported in Brian Weiss’s book, Only Love is Real. He had two separate patients who were using hypnosis to recall past lives. After months of sessions with both patients, Weiss finally realized that details of two of their lives were identical. For instance, the woman recalled her father’s death by being dragged from the back of a horse. The man recalled a life with the exact same geographical descriptions where he was a man who was killed by being dragged by the back of a horse as his daughter watched. Weiss did not want to interfere with “fate” but decided to book these two patient’s appointments back to back so that they would see each other in the waiting room. They met but nothing happened and Weiss thought his experiment failed because the man was planning to leave the country forever. To his surprise, however, the two were traveling on the same day and the woman’s flight to Boston was cancelled and she was put on a plane to New York. This was the same flight as the other patient. When the two patients saw each other in the airport waiting area, they started talking and decided to switch their seats so they could sit next to each other. They ended up changing their plans so they could spend time together and eventually got married.

Another view of soulmates was expressed in the book, God and the Evolving Universe. The writers quote the 16^th century Jewish mystic the Baal Shem Tov who said, ”From every human being there rises a light that reaches straight to heaven, and when two souls that are destined to be together find each other, the streams of light flow together and a single brighter light goes forth from that united being.”

I’ve always thought that soulmates are like a symphony. For some reason, when the notes come together they are no longer individual notes; they combine to form a magnificent musical composition that touches the soul. When a relationship hasn’t lasted, I have realized that the notes are not in harmony with each other -- the music has no melody. The notes are fine by themselves, but together, the music is disconcerting. In a soulmate relationship, each person is more beautiful than they ever were alone. I know that when I am around certain people, the best side of me naturally appears. I am still the same person but I appear different to others. I think that when someone feels fulfilled, they have more to share with other people and it just keeps growing from there.

Soulmates also represent “mature” love. In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm states that immature love is the statement, “I love you because I need you,” while mature love is the statement, ”I need you because I love you.” In a soulmate relationship, we do not see our partner as the sum of individual characteristic traits. Every person we love has parts that we don’t like but the undesirable attributes do not stop us from loving the totality of both good and bad characteristics. A soulmate relationship is based on an unselfish desire to share our lives with an imperfect person, rather than a belief that the person has specific qualities that “complete” us. The relationship, not the person, is what makes us feel more “complete.” We find ecstasy and bliss by expressing our love rather than by idolizing a fantasized illusion that no human being can live up to.

Idolatry is actually very common in a search for a soulmate. It happens early on in dating process. If we find someone that ignites an unusual ecstasy (or intense chemistry), we subconsciously attach our soulmate fantasy to that person. We place the person on a pedestal, perceive him or her as some sort of “god,” and we believe that the person is superior to us. Later, we find out that the particular person cannot live up to our idolized image but we never consciously disconnect the soulmate attachment. We have attributed “divine” qualities to someone who is not “godlike,” which is identical to the experience of idolatry in the olden days. Then every time we meet someone similar, the soulmate fantasy is automatically reattached to the new person. This is often the case for people who create patterns of always being attracted to the wrong people. If we do not disassociate the soulmate fantasy from a particular type of person, we keep recreating the drama. However, instead of automatically being attracted to that type of person, we need to recognize that the soulmate fantasy has been erroneously attached to the type of person who possesses recognizable personality characteristics. We need to be extra careful around these people unless we can go through the process of de-attaching the soulmate fantasy from a certain character type (which is very difficult to do).

What are we supposed to do if our soulmate doesn’t appear? Are our only options to remain alone or compromise? I believe that soulmates are broader than a special lover or marriage partner. It may be difficult to find a “romantic” soulmate, but that doesn’t mean that our lives don’t include other types of soulmates. Soulmates include members of a person’s family, friends or even animals. Some people find soulmates through music, literature or art. A soulmate is someone or something that makes us more beautiful or more complete. It is not limited to finding a person who we want to marry. Children can be soulmates for parents and good friends are soulmates to each other. For many people, God or Allah, Nirvana or the universe fulfills the requirements of finding a soulmate. If someone or something touches our soul and brightens its expression, we have found one of many soulmates that will eventually enter our lives.

The definition of Hell is being separated from the one you love. The Persian myth of Satan is that he loved God too much to serve man – he could only love God. In the story, Satan was sent to Hell, which is symbolized as a separation from God, or the object of his love. For many people, hell on earth is also a separation from God or a separation from love; and this unity with God seems to reappear when we love a soulmate -- whether it is another human being or God Himself.

The image of a soulmate is the basis of every good love story. Our romantic fantasies are idealized with a vision of perfect love -- but what happens to these fantasies in real life? Marriage can be fairly ordinary and filled with routine. The majority of singles are continuously frustrated by unfulfilled expectations. There is nothing more disappointing than believing we’ve found a soulmate only to discover that its foundation was made of sand. For some people, a soulmate is only a fantasy and for others, it is the discovery of paradise in this world. Sometimes, soulmates are actually disguised as friends. Without continual faith and a belief in the power of mystery and magic, soulmates could never be real; because if we believe that soulmates don’t exist, they never will.

Soulmates
Although dreams succumb to ephemeral love,

enduring endearments can still be expected

by sustaining the passion of ecstasy and bliss

for the soulmates with whom we’re eternally connected.

In theory, someone could have multiple soulmates,

though finding just one is usually missed.

If a person’s content with a partner that’s found,

they prematurely lose faith that a soulmate exists.

Since many need soulmates in specified time frames,

they focus their searches to lessen the wait.

Sadly they don’t know that escaping their destiny

is harder than waiting to uncover their fate.

Wanting a soulmate’s not a sign of weakness,

it requires much courage and heart.

It’s knowing that two people who are strong by themselves,

can be stronger together, than when they’re apart.

Life turns and twists with its mysterious trysts

until soulmates are meant to converge.

Then a predestined path unifies them at last

so that spiritual fulfillment can finally emerge.

Since mystical devotion guides timeless emotion

recognition of soulmates is instantly grasped.

Intonations, expressions, gestures and glances

make soulmates believe they have met in the past.

Impassioned affection is a euphoric connection

for soulmates who are destined to find

a heightened serenity and enlightened identity

as they unite with their partner’s heart, soul and mind.

This sacred salvation is a divine revelation

at the moment two souls recognize --

that this magical reunion of soulmates

is a union with God in disguise.

Happiness vs. Pleasure

In The Declaration of Independence, our forefathers stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” That one line summarizes the priorities of humanity. Our lives are sacred, we will always be free and .we must be able to find happiness in whatever way that we choose. I’ve always been surprised that happiness is assumed as a basic right when it can be one of the most difficult attributes to attain. Furthermore, many people continually confuse happiness with pleasure. It’s interesting that the Declaration of Independence did not use the words, “Pursuit of Pleasure.” Did our forefathers discuss the subtle distinction between happiness and pleasure?

The primary difference between the two attributes is that pleasure is external and happiness is internal. Pleasure is an event, while happiness is a state of mind.

Pleasure often provides an environment for happiness, but there are no guarantees. Someone can be extremely unhappy while experiencing pleasure; and someone can be happy even though external circumstances are unpleasant. I’ve often asked people, “Which is easier, happiness or pleasure?” Almost everyone tells me that pleasure is easier to obtain; but I’m still not convinced.

Pleasure depends on many elements that are beyond our control. We can select the best restaurant in town, but the experience can still be unpleasant if the service is bad.

On the other hand, happiness is an attitude that is always within our control. We choose when, where, how and why to be happy and nobody can interfere with that decision. We can choose to be happy even when we are experiencing financial problems, because we can decide not to worry about them. We can reflect on positive memories at any time and happiness appears. We do not even have to do anything to be happy. We can be alone at home or among a crowd.

The Dalai Lama says, “If we have a positive mental attitude, then even when surrounded by hostility, we shall not lack inner peace. On the other hand, if our mental attitude is more negative, influenced by fear, suspicion, helplessness or self-loathing, then even when surrounded by our best friends, in a nice atmosphere and comfortable surroundings, we shall not be happy.”

As Epicurus stated in ancient Greece (342-280 BC), one of the easiest routes for developing a positive mental attitude is by enjoying the simple pleasures in life. Simple pleasures can easily transcend to ultimate happiness. Through simplicity, we are reminded of the immortal happiness of youth and the pleasures that we experienced when we were young can be just as pleasurable as adults. I learned this one night as I was playing a game of Risk with a friend. I hadn’t played Risk since I was a child. The game was pleasurable but the internal happiness that was stimulated by enjoying this simple pleasure was immeasurable.

Happiness is strongly influenced by living in the present, rather than the past or the future. The present is the moment we enjoy. The second we think of the past or the future, we miss the pleasure of the present. Diversions of the past bring regret or longing and a focus on the future brings worries, fantasies or expectations (all of which may never come to pass). The night before my friend Bob committed suicide, I was enthusiastically talking to him about his future. He asked me to stop because he just wanted the opportunity to appreciate our dinner. At the time, I did not know why a conversation about the future would be disturbing but after he died, I learned to appreciate the value of the moment. The happiness that we shared that night was my last opportunity to appreciate Bob in this lifetime

No one can judge whether or not we are happy, even though many people assume they can. A close friend once told me, “I lost my job and as a result, I had to move out of my apartment. Immediately, other people assumed I was unhappy. Everyone pitied me for a depression that I never experienced. The loss of my job did not affect the way I saw the world or myself. It shocked me that no one even asked if I was unhappy because they just took it for granted that happiness and pleasure were synonymous. My happiness has never been defined by external events but since everyone else uses the external environment to define their internal state of mind, they just naturally assumed that I was the same. It was so frustrating for me to keep hearing about how unhappy I was when it couldn’t have been further from the truth.”

Self-esteem is an extremely important component of happiness. If a woman believes that her weight is a problem, continual pleasure cannot make her happy. If a man believes that his income is too low, he may feel that happiness is impossible without financial security. Even when people find the object that defines their “happiness,” they can still be unhappy. Sadly, they eventually realize that external objects can never fill an emptiness that results from a lack of internal fulfillment.

Kelly is a woman who strongly correlates her definition of personal success with her marital status. When she was single she was always unhappy, irrespective of the other events that were occurring in her life. Her dates were similar to job interviews and every man was treated as a potential prospect. Kelly eventually got married to a man who was attractive and successful, but they had little in common. For a while, just the act of getting married seemed to provide happiness; but a few months after the initial thrill wore off, Kelly realized she didn’t love the man she married. Even though she thought she should be happy because she was married, Kelly was now unhappy because she hadn’t found love. The emptiness that appeared was much harder to fill. She felt she couldn’t leave her husband because she couldn’t face the failure of divorce, but she never felt fulfilled by her marriage. To this day, Kelly is still searching for elusive happiness through external events. Her happiness appears to be a roller coaster ride that is tied to the latest act of pleasure.

Expectations are also highly correlated with happiness. If expectations are unrealistic, it can be impossible to feel satisfied. Expectations are also tied to pleasure. If we expect that our friends will join us for dinner, it can be very disappointing when they don’t arrive. However, if we expect that our friends are unreliable, their absence cannot affect the way we feel about the situation. Managing expectations in a relationship is one of the key ingredients for happiness.

Some people believe that it is better to eliminate expectations altogether. Without expectations, we can never be disappointed or unhappy. Yet, expectations give us hope, help us set goals for ourselves (and others) and they can directly influence reality. For example, if we expect nothing, we may get exactly what we expect – nothing. If we expect greatness, we may actually find it or create it ourselves. If a company expects sales of $100 million, it implements a strategy and tactics for achieving this expectation. If the same company expects sales of $300 million, different strategies and tactics could aggressively increase sales. If we expect that we will never fall in love, we probably won’t. If we expect happiness, we will probably find it. Managing expectations is very different from giving them up entirely.

Typically, success is not defined in a vacuum; it is defined in relation to other people’s successes. Managing expectations for happiness means that we choose the appropriate measurements for comparison. For example, a baseball player who makes $3 million a year is viewed as wealthy by most of America. However, this baseball player can be extremely dissatisfied if his team players make $6 million a year. Being rich is unimportant; instead, the gratification of monetary success is more dependent on how one feels about his or her income. Many people may feel extreme pleasure after receiving a million dollars but that pleasure quickly fades as they become accustomed to the additional income. The happiness achieved from the increased income can quickly turn to dissatisfaction if unrealistic comparisons are used to define success. A person who makes $50,000 make feel wealthy if he compares himself to people who make only $20,000 a year. However, the same income can lead to unhappiness if it is compared to people who make $100,000 or more. In essence, we determine our happiness by choosing our measurements for comparison. If we were able to spend time living in a poor village in Africa, our own economic circumstances would be greatly appreciated. Happiness about our current economic situation would be enhanced by choosing an appropriate comparison and these comparisons are completely within our control.

Since happiness is within our control, there are special activities that we can do to create happiness. For example, if relaxation makes us happy, we can schedule a facial or massage. If exploration makes us happy, we can plan a trip to Europe. Since increased self-esteem is correlated with happiness, regular exercise or wearing our favorite clothes can help us feel more fulfilled. Meditation is an extremely important activity that can always be used to obtain happiness. The pleasurable act of meditation harmonizes the mind and body, which creates the happiness of inner peace. In essence, we can create correlations between happiness and pleasure even if they don’t necessarily have to exist.

As pleasure can evoke happiness, the absence of pleasure can bring about unhappiness. Deepak Chopra says that pleasure is obtained through external stimuli and when the stimulus is withdrawn, we become unhappy. “Studies have shown that newborn babies, for example, like to have pretty dangling things in their surroundings. A mobile with ten shiny objects on it will cause a baby to gurgle and laugh when it’s placed over the crib. However, if you take away eight of the dangles and leave behind only two, the baby will cry in loud protest…there can be no sense of security in your existence when it depends on outside factors, for the unpredictable changes of reality can never be controlled. The solution is to find happiness beyond pleasure, since pleasure seeking can never be made independent of outside stimulus.”

Lasting happiness usually occurs when individuals find meaning in their lives or their true “calling.” Inner peace is experienced any time the activity is pursued. For example, if someone is a talented painter, the act of painting is not only pleasurable, but it also provides a strong sense of inner fulfillment. Joseph Campbell says, “The way to find out about your happiness is to keep your mind on those moments when you feel most happy, when you really are happy – not excited, not just thrilled, but deeply happy. This requires a little bit of self-analysis. What is it that makes you happy? Stay with it, no matter what people tell you. This is what I call following your bliss.”

Continual happiness can also be found through feeling grateful for everything that is a part of life. If we continually appreciate other people, ourselves, the sun, nature, food and shelter, or any of the basic necessities of life, then happiness can be found every day that we are alive.

Many people don’t realize that extreme happiness results from altruism or unselfishness. Since happiness and pleasure are focused on satisfying the ego, it is difficult to understand that by giving up the ego, we can feel extremely fulfilled. If my day’s events are disturbing, I know that I can obtain happiness simply by helping one of my neighbors take out the trash. Making someone else happy is often the most effective way to find it ourselves. Lao Tzu has stated, “The Master has no possessions. The more he does for others, the happier he is. The more he gives to others, the wealthier he is.”

Another important realization is that other people can never be responsible for our own happiness. Relinquishing responsibility for providing personal satisfaction is too great of a burden to place on any other human being. We are the only ones who can ensure internal fulfillment. If we require continual pleasure from others, they will always be unsuccessful. According to Brian Weiss, MD in his book, Messages from the Masters, “Happiness comes from within. It is not dependent on external things or on other people. You become vulnerable and can be easily hurt when your feelings of security and happiness depend on the behavior and actions of other people. Never give your power to anyone else.” The act of demanding pleasure from someone as a means for finding happiness is also a downward spiral because the other person feels inadequate. If one person in a relationship feels incapable of providing happiness, the relationship will fail. I have never understood the comment “I want to end the relationship with my boyfriend because he doesn’t make me happy.” How could a human being make someone else happy? The person can provide pleasure and through love, the couple can find happiness; but one human being can never be responsible for the happiness of another.

Seeking pleasure is often used just to avoid unhappiness. This tactic is deceptive because unhappiness is not the always the opposite of happiness (many people who are not happy are also not unhappy – they may just be indifferent). For example, the cocktail hour can temporarily conceal distress. Yet, inebriation only dulls the senses so that underlying disappointments are ignored. The resulting pleasure makes us think we have found happiness, but it is only a disguise. In essence, pleasure is an ephemeral euphoria, while happiness is an everlasting ecstasy.

The pleasure of sex can also delude people into thinking that have found happiness and since sex is accompanied by physical orgasm, the body is fooled. Furthermore, sex can deceptively increase self-worth by convincing insecure people that they are desired by others; and sexual conquests can compensate for feelings of inadequacy. Yet pleasure is temporary, so the feelings of increased self-worth quickly fade. Like an addict in search of a “fix,” the need for validation leads to recurring sexual escapades where the dosage of ego-fulfillment needs to increase with every conquest.

People may think they are completely fulfilled without knowing that they aren’t really happy. This example was portrayed in the movie Family Man. Nicolas Cage thought he had everything he wanted. He was successful and rich and could have any pleasure that he desired. He thought he was happy until he was provided with a “glimpse” of his life if he had taken another path. The alternative path had allowed him to find love, which he found to be superior to materialistic pleasures. When he returned to his previous life, he had to accept that his pleasurable life was actually unfulfilling.

Often we don’t even realize that we are unhappy because we don’t know what we are missing. Yet, once the source of inner fulfillment is discovered, we finally realize that we never understood the true definition of happiness before. This is similar to the cliché that ignorance is bliss. As long as we ignore the dreams that we never pursued, we can be fooled by believing that we are happy, when we are only capable of experiencing temporary pleasure.

Happiness may be transitory, but the ability to obtain happiness can last forever. Happiness appears when the conditions are appropriate or when people choose to find inner fulfillment, but it can easily disappear when unpleasant distractions materialize. For example, if happiness is achieved, it can be quickly eliminated by the pain of physical injury. The physical pain requires immediate attention, which eliminates feelings of internal peace. Long periods of illness or the loss of a loved one can also interfere with our desire for happiness. It is important to realize that the ability to find happiness never goes away; external circumstances may just delay its expression for a period of time.

Whereas, happiness may be temporarily restrained by our injuries, a lack of happiness can actually create physical illness. In the book, The Pursuit of Happiness, David Meyers says, “Our body’s immune system fights disease more effectively when we are happy rather than depressed. When we are depressed, the number of certain disease-fighting cells declines. Stressed animals and distressed or depressed people are therefore more vulnerable to various illnesses.” Thus, the unhappiness syndrome becomes a downward spiral -- when we are unhappy, we are more likely to get ill and when we are ill, we are more likely to become unhappy.

Every time we feel unhappy, we are reminded to appreciate our good health. Unfortunately, this tactic is usually unsuccessful. Good health is like wealth. The absence of the attribute causes unhappiness but the reverse is not always true. Studies have shown that wealth and good health usually do not increase happiness because they are viewed as “steady-state” conditions. Yet, after we lose our health or wealth, we become extremely grateful for the times that our physical and financial well-being were secure.

I have always been confused by the common question, “Are you happy?” People ask the question as though they are asking about the weather. Yet, it is an extremely complicated and difficult question to answer. The accurate question is, “Are you able to find inner peace?” Or “Are you satisfied with your life?” Many people find it hard to be “happy” continually. Individuals merely have the potential to find happiness at any moment they choose. The answer could be, “I am happy when I write,” or “I am happy with my relationship,” or “I am happy when I work,” or “I am happy in this present moment” but it is difficult to experience perpetual happiness (though not impossible). When people ask, “Are you happy?” they are typically asking whether your life has more pleasure than displeasure at that point in time. Yet, an ordinary day is filled with a mixture of enjoyable and disappointing moments. To accurately answer the question, we would have to measure the time that we feel pleasure vs. the time that we don’t. If the majority of time were pleasurable, then the answer would be yes. However, the question is difficult to answer because most people are not counting the minutes of pleasure they experience every day.

The question is also not really a question. Most people just want to hear that we are happy because it makes them feel better about our present circumstances. If someone answers “no” to the question, there is a look of shock or dismay on the other person’s face. Most people do not know how to deal with a “no” answer and their natural reaction is one of pity or condemnation. They say things like, “Why aren’t you happy? What’s the matter? What can I do?” We begin to believe that we are always supposed to be “happy” and if we are not, then something is wrong with us. The expectation of perpetual happiness just isn’t realistic. To avoid judgment, many people answer “yes” to the question, even if the reverse is true. In fact, studies have shown that most people are unhappy even if they don’t admit it. David Meyers says, ”Dennis Wholey (author of Are you Happy) reports that experts he interviewed believe that perhaps 20 percent of Americans are happy. ‘I’m surprised!’ responded psychologist Archibald Hart…’I would have thought he proportion was much lower!” Father John Powell agrees: ‘One-third of all Americans wake up depressed every day. Professionals estimate that only 10 to 15 percent of Americans think of themselves as truly happy.’”

Continual happiness is a rare experience but when it occurs, it is magical. For example, after an enlightenment experience, a person can feel continual happiness for days. It is a state of perpetual ecstasy. All negative emotions simply disappear and nothing external can interfere with the inner peace that results from the experience. Infatuation can have the same effect. There is a sense of continual bliss that overshadows the day-to-day inconveniences. Sustaining continual happiness over a longer period of time is more difficult. After enlightenment, a state of normalcy reappears and infatuation eventually fades. Yet, once these states are discovered, they can reappear. The inner peace of enlightenment can be ignited through meditation and infatuation can evolve to the happiness of love.

Unfortunately, American society has convinced consumers that happiness can easily be obtained through the purchase of material goods. Advertising campaigns and displays of wealth make people believe that happiness and material goods are correlated, when in fact, the opposite is true. The need to acquire items in response to psychological distress is a temporary solution that provides pleasure for only a short period of time. In the long term, the acquired items have no relation to happiness and can negatively affect happiness if financial security is compromised. The desire for shopping starts at a very young age. My 12-year-old niece derives extreme satisfaction from going to the mall. As a society, we have the responsibility to curb the desire for material goods. We need to teach children how to find happiness through love, friendship and sharing or by encouraging them to express their talents or to pursue non-materialistic endeavors.

Happiness is often derived from sharing positive experiences with people we care about. Yet, technological advances are actually separating people rather than bringing them together. For example, a hundred years ago, families spent most of their time together without interruptions from external sources. Now there are over 100 cable channels that distract us from pursuing happiness or computer activities that shut us off from the rest of the world. The Internet has connected people all over the world, but we seem to be more connected to web pages than other people. Technological progress is not negative, but how we use technology can have a negative impact on our ability to find internal fulfillment.

The following chart compares happiness to pleasure. It seems that pleasure may be easier to obtain in the short term, but more difficult to sustain over time. On the other hand, happiness seems difficult to find initially, but it is always accessible, it is within our control and it can create lasting benefits.

Happiness	Pleasure
Thinking about Capri, Italy	Vacationing in Capri, Italy
Anticipating a great dinner	Eating a great dinner
Love	Sex
Wisdom	Reading insightful material
Acceptance	Hearing a compliment
Kindness and trust	Helping someone or being helped
Feeling of euphoria, altered consciousness	Drugs, alcohol, meditation, exercise
Growth	Introspection
Connecting with the universe	Looking at the moon on a clear night
Accomplishment	Finishing a term paper or project
Connection with nature	Squirrel eats out of your hand
Fantasy	Seeing a good movie
Spirituality	Prayer or meditation
Increased self-esteem	New clothes, facial, haircut
Hope and faith	Spiritual religious service
Balance and relaxation	A warm bath or massage
Security	Paying off a credit card bill
Affection	Hugging an animal
Success	Job promotion or raise
Exploration	Driving through Europe

I’ve always heard the quote that “happiness is a warm blanket,” but it took me a long time to realize that it wasn’t true. The warm blanket provides pleasure; and the rest is up to us. How we feel under that blanket can include affection, love, security, or simply the desire to avoid the cold.

Nothing can buy happiness except an internal commitment to find it in our souls. Happiness is always waiting for us to pull the trigger. If the external distractions get in the way, we need to find a quiet place, breathe slowly and find the peace that lies in our hearts. We were born to be happy and we need to face the challenge of finding happiness in every act of pleasure, in every human being and with every creation of the universe. Happiness inevitably results from the recognition of our unity with God and every manifestation of His creations. Our connection to the unity of the spiritual universe creates a transcendent happiness that completely surpasses temporal pleasure.

In the book, The 72 Names of God, Yehuda Berg says, “Too often we confuse temporary pleasure with enduring happiness because the trappings of the physical world are highly seductive and potent. When we are able to distinguish between the two, we will find true happiness. Pleasure is usually associated with the egocentric desires, whereas happiness is linked to the longings of the soul. By and large, our desires emerge from the selfish side of our nature. What we covet is not necessarily what will bring us lasting fulfillment. Happiness eludes us when we chase after what we want, as opposed to what we need. Our desires and cravings generally bring misfortune and turmoil after the initial pleasures and immediate gratifications have worn off. We find true happiness when our lives are spent transcending our ego-based impulses to steadfastly pursue what our souls need for transformation and elevation.”

I still wonder whether our forefathers focused on the subtle differences between happiness and pleasure when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. When I ask people what they want most in life, they usually say, “I want to be happy.” Does the persistent desire for happiness imply that for many of us, it is still unfulfilled? What if we said to people, “This week you are free from all obligations. Now go forward and pursue happiness.” Would they know what to do? Wouldn’t their thoughts be focused on finding pleasure, instead? The pursuit of happiness does not need to be difficult and we don’t need a week’s vacation to find it. The Dalai Lama believes that the purpose of life is to be happy and as he said in his book, Ethics for the New Millennium, “The desire or inclination to be happy…knows no boundaries. It is in our nature. “