A Right to Happiness, or not?

“You have a right to be happy”,
“You deserve to be happy”,
“All sentient beings have the right to be happy”

I came across these quotes on the internet while reading some random articles on self esteem. While these common quotes surely sound very nice and perhaps even uplifting or empowering, they somehow didn’t resonate with me. And the more I thought about them, the more they didn’t make sense.

Why would you have the right to be happy? Who says so? Where does that right come from? What does that even mean?

My train of thought was this:
A right is a concept made up by humans, a construct of the human mind. It is something, that is -or is not- agreed upon by people. It is something that’s been given to you, or taken away. Or something you might choose to take and claim for yourself. Regardless of how I look at it, a right seems to be no more than an opinion, open for interpretation.

Animals don’t give themselves the right to be happy, neither do they claim that right for themselves. They just are happy, or not. And while they might even long for that particular state of mind, they don’t seem to justify it.

Now, experiencing a bad mood is most likely an uncomfortable experience to most beings, but why do so many people constantly gravitate to the other extreme, craving happiness? How can this become the number one goal in ones life? Why do we not simply aim for being OK, content, or calm?

I’m new to Buddhism, and from what I understand, Buddhism reminds us that everything is impermanent. Everything comes and goes. Even happiness must be in constant flux then, just like anything else in this world. Knowing this, how can I expect myself to be happy for most of my time? Or even OK, content, or calm for that matter?
The right to be happy seems rather illusive to me, if happiness is such a short lived, fluctuating circumstance.

Also, would I even truly deserve to be happy? Did I really do something that would inevitably lead to the feeling of happiness? Maybe my Karma might work in my favor, but even that doesn’t make happiness my right or something I deserve, it would simply be the result of cause and effect.

Perhaps I completely misunderstand the meaning of all this.
Is it really possible to achieve a constant state of happiness, for example through meditation? Is that a goal in Buddhism as well?

The more I think about it, the more I’m compelled to say “I have the right to be confused”. Surprisingly, that’s much easier to believe.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Note: I’m new to the forum and this is my first post. I just had all these questions on my mind and have chosen to post this in the water cooler section. Perhaps someone else is having some thoughts on this as well. Anyway, nice to meet you and thanks for reading! :slight_smile:

9 Likes

There are 2 things. Rights vs Responsibilities.

We need to veer towards responsibilities. So in the example you have given, it’s your responsibility to see that you treat yourself and others with kindness.

Giving an extreme example - let’s say you end up in an abusive relationship whether it is your parents or partner.

Know, its a consequence of your own previous thoughts, words or actions you are now on the receiving end of this harsh relationship. Everything, even the situations you perceive as “unfair” is in fact fair.

The way to handle such situations is with equanimity and compassion towards you and also others. You will need to skillfully figure out how to navigate the unfortunate situation you have found yourself.

If you react either negatively or positively, you only instigate the same of more to come.

1 Like

For me, this means the right to not be harmed & oppressed by others.

All sentient beings should ideally be free from oppression by others & have the right to cultivate happiness. However, this does not necessarily mean they will be happy.
e

Yes, poor self-esteem can be caused by oppression by others. However, poor self-esteem can also be caused by one’s own unknowledgable actions. [quote=“WeatherGirl, post:1, topic:5314”]
While these common quotes surely sound very nice and perhaps even uplifting or empowering, they somehow didn’t resonate with me.
[/quote]

Sure. These quotes are often just ‘slogans’, without considering the endeavour & discipline required to find decent happiness.

We ourselves say so because we ourselves do not want to be harmed or hurt or have suffering, if we can avoid it.

Certainly, this can be so. Our world has many people in it, often very powerful, who seek to take away whatever happiness other people have.

However, this is not Buddhist. In Buddhism, a social value called ‘mudita’ is cultivated, where it is wished for others to not be parted from any happiness & good fortune they have attained.[quote=“WeatherGirl, post:1, topic:5314”]
Animals don’t give themselves the right to be happy, neither do they claim that right for themselves.
[/quote]

Possibly. Buddhism tries to not harm animals but Buddhism also considers being ‘human’ is different to being an ‘animal’. In Buddhism, the word for ‘human’ literally means to have a ‘higher mind’.

Most animals are hard programmed behaviourally by instincts where as humans can reflect upon & ponder their experience & reality, as you have done with your lengthy & thoughtful post here. An animal cannot do this.

I agree here. There is really nothing that makes it “inevitable” to be happy. Instead, we must work for it.[quote=“WeatherGirl, post:1, topic:5314”]
Maybe my Karma might work in my favor,
[/quote]

The most important karma in Buddhism is the present karma (actions) we perform.

Past karma merely manifests as a present experience that can be responded to wisely, reconciled & altered if necessary. [quote=“WeatherGirl, post:1, topic:5314”]
Perhaps I completely misunderstand the meaning of all this.
[/quote]

No. Much of what you have posted is valid & true. I agree nobody “deserves” happiness without working for it. However, I believe nobody should be deliberately made by others to experience unhappiness.

Yes, absolutely. But to perfect this constant state of happiness is rare & requires lots of practice, which is why very serious happiness-seekers become monks & nuns, so they can devote their efforts full-time towards this goal.

In general, Buddhist practise still offers lots of happiness without it being 100% perfect or constant. [quote=“WeatherGirl, post:1, topic:5314”]
“I have the right to be confused”
[/quote]

The word “rights” is popular in the political world of aggressive people, which is probably why these people are unhappy.

In Buddhism, we would say we have natural disposition or nature to be confused. Buddhism teaches every person in the world, without exception, is born with confusion. For example, the person who became the Buddha was confused for the first 35 years of his life. Some Buddhists believe this person was confused for not only 35 years but for billions of lifetimes beforehand. So in Buddhism, confusion is the most natural & normal thing in the world. [quote=“WeatherGirl, post:1, topic:5314”]
Anyway, nice to meet you and thanks for reading!
[/quote]

Welcome to the forum W.G. :koala:

2 Likes

Does this mean from a past life or the current one? What about children who get raped, is that the fault of previous actions?

2 Likes

All consequences one faces is a result of ones thoughts, words or actions. It can be from this life or any of the previous lives.

I cannot comment on child rape etc. It requires insight into the child’s mind. There is no age discrimination. I know it’s brutally honest and fair.

The following desana explains things in detail.

2 Likes

AN 3.61 does not appear say this.

Bhikkhus, I approached those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by past deeds,’ and I said to them: ‘Is it true that you venerable ones hold such a doctrine and view?’ When I ask them this, they affirm it. Then I say to them: ‘In such a case, it is due to past deeds that you might destroy life, take what is not given, indulge in sexual activity, speak falsehood, utter divisive speech, speak harshly, indulge in idle chatter; that you might be full of longing, have a mind of ill will, and hold wrong view.’

Those who fall back on past deeds as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. This was my first legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view.

Dhp 137 does not appear to say this.

He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed & offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten states: Sharp pain or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness or derangement of mind, trouble from the government or grave charges, loss of relatives or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.

:seedling:

4 Likes

@WeatherGirl
Sorry to barge in on your conversation.
@Deeele
Is it safe to say that if someone did have those types of troubles in childhood it would be because of something they did in a past life? I just mean, is there any mention of it anywhere in the Suttas?

1 Like

[quote=“Tupelo, post:7, topic:5314”]
Is it safe to say that if someone did have those types of troubles in childhood it would be because of something they did in a past life?[/quote]

In my opinion, definitely not. In MN 64, the Buddha taught a young child has very limited cognitive abilities. I think it is obvious the troubles of a child (who cannot respond wisely to violence, like an adult) are due to the evil defilements & ignorance within the mind of the abuser. Thus the Dhammapada states, as I quoted:

He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed & offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten states: Sharp pain or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness or derangement of mind, trouble from the government or grave charges, loss of relatives or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell. Dhp 137

I personally have not read anything. There is MN 135 however this seems to refer mostly to superficial worldly states of social status & self-inflicted harm rather than being abused or violated by others:

Master Gotama, what is the cause and condition why human beings are seen to be inferior and superior? For people are seen to be short-lived and long-lived, sickly and healthy, ugly and beautiful, uninfluential and influential, poor and wealthy, low-born and high-born, stupid and wise.

For example, MN 135 does not refer to the violent intervention of another person or 3rd party, who punishes a person for past bad kamma:

Here, student, some man or woman is given to injuring beings with the hand, with a clod, with a stick, or with a knife. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation…But if instead he comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is sickly. This is the way, student, that leads to sickliness, namely, one is given to injuring beings with the hand, with a clod, with a stick, or with a knife.

AN 6.63 states: "kamma is intention". Since a child does not intend to be abused, I doubt actions performed by others towards the child are related to any intention or kamma of the child.

:seedling:

1 Like

Thank you, that makes so much more sense. :lotus:

1 Like

@Rajitha thank you for your reply. You made an interesting point, mentioning responsibility. I haven’t thought about it from this angle.

@Deeele has also mentioned the word mudita.

I believe this is in line with the responsibility to treat yourself and others with kindness.

Wow! Thank you @Deeele for taking the time to respond to my post.
You gave me a lot to reflect on and answered quite a few questions.

After reading your response, I agree these quotes sound more like “slogans”. And the word “right” does have quite a political nature to it.

I haven’t really thought about the different natures of happiness in Buddhism before.
But nibbana is of course the one with the permanent nature. Thanks for pointing that out :blush:

@Tupelo [quote=“Tupelo, post:4, topic:5314”]
Does this mean from a past life or the current one? What about children who get raped, is that the fault of previous actions?
[/quote]

I have been wondering about this as well sometimes. I have a friend who is a Jain and believes that all the bad things that happen to you as a child are caused by the Karma you have accumulated in a previous life.

@Deeele has pointed out some interesting lines in the suttas on this.

1 Like

Neither does SN 36.21:

2 Likes

Yes, I’d really echo the point about looking into the exact definitions of happiness used in particular contexts.

In the Buddhist context I’ve definitely seen “happiness” being used to refer to nibbana in some text translations, but to get a sense of what that actually means I’d suggest looking at descriptions across the Early Buddhist Texts of what constitutes nibbana. I’m sure there would be lots of ways to set it out, but one very simple one might be: to be completely and enduringly free from greed, hatred and delusion.

WELCOME! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Welcome!

If the cause of unhappiness was removed, you could be more happy for more of your time, peaceful the next, feel compassion, joy for another (mudita) etc. even though they change!

In Buddhism there is this idea about what impacts on anyone (‘Niyama Dhamma’):

  1. Karma -more superficially the effect of past karma
  2. Intention - your volition to do something.
  3. Seasons - how this affects someone may have nothing to do with karma
  4. Inherited traits (ie- genetics) - if your parents are tall you might be tall…
  5. Dhamma - impermanence etc.

As you can see Karma is only one thing that can affect you. You have the ability to change things for the better. Well, as for the things that can’t be changed, its important to wish otherwise …and learn acceptance. Also our current actions will create the future so there is opportunity in th present moment.

The past is the past- we have all done the worst crimes, if past lives at to be believed, including the Buddha! It is for karma to decide how it affect us. Whether we deserve something or not we cannot know. Best to not think on those terms but work towards the future. We know if we don’t, it wont happen. If we do, it might. We decide what we make of the future (to the best of our abilities of course).

with metta

3 Likes

Thank you @Aminah!

I will look into this :slight_smile:

Thank you for your reply @Mat!

That’s a good point!

I didn’t know that. As far as I understood, there were events that are not influenced by karma, like a rock that breaks of a cliff falls on someone’s head, for example. That would be point number 3? I wasn’t aware of the other factors you mentioned.

This certainly puts things into perspective.

Thanks Mat :slight_smile:

I do not believe that the Buddha described kamma in this way. Kamma has at its core the aspect of intention. When we act skillfully, with the intent to do good, the kamma is bright and will tend to have a positive influence on the outcomes in our life. It is not a direct one-to-one cause and effect, but it has this accumulative positive effect in ways that are not easily quantifiable, The same may be true for kamma and its effect on future rebirths. The effect is not quantifiable. So, to say that a person who has been a victim of a violent act, or a tsunami, has inherited the effects of past kamma is not in line with the Buddha’s teaching on kamma. Buddhists that say that victims of violent crimes or tsunamis “well, that’s their kamma” in my view do not understand the teachings of kamma. These may be Brahmanic or Jain ideas, but I do not believe they are Buddhist, at least in the way that the Buddha taught kamma and rebirth.

Victims of emotional abuse or domestic violence are not being treated fairly. There is nothing earned or fair about being victimized this way. Noting that one does in this life or a past life makes being harmed this way “fair,” or deserved.

1 Like

These 5 can act in complex ways. It is probably impossible to say which is which. The Buddha actually said not to try to figure this out as it would be too confusing.

So in your rock example:

  1. Karma- hitting someone on the head with a rock, in previous life
  2. Intention- blocking the rock with your hand, can mitigate its effects
  3. Seasons- maybe the rock expanding in hot weather made it break off
  4. Inherited traits- size of head? :slight_smile:
  5. Dhamma - impermanence of the rock face now fragmenting

It becomes really difficult to say to what degree each factor influenced the final outcome.

with metta

2 Likes

The suttas don’t address children being raped, but they address other arisings of misfortune due to evil performed in past lives. See MN 135 and MN 136. It’s reasonable to assume that those two suttas don’t offer an exhaustive list of similar dynamics at play. We can infer the general principle from these teachings: unwholesome actions of body, speech and mind lead to unwished for, disagreeable results and vice-versa. This principle can be verified in our own experience of life.

There’s no use speculating about the specifics of how seeds of action from past lives have sprouted their fruit in the present. We know they have, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. :slight_smile:

“There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

“The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

“The jhana-range of a person in jhana…

“The [precise working out of the] results of kamma…

“Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

“These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.”

AN 4.77

3 Likes