If It Won't Make Me Happier, then Why Bother?

Originally Posted by Surf Rider

I'm single and lonely. And one of the most common pieces of advice given to people who are single and lonely is that a relationship will not make them happier. We are told that we must become happy as single people before we are ready for a relationship.

But this creates a problem. If a happy single person cannot be made happier by entering a relationship, then why would a happy single person bother with a relationship at all? If there is no happiness to be gained by entering a relationship, then why enter a relationship?

The question can be made more profound by this: a relationship cannot make you happier, but it can make you miserable. The same can be said of any life event: a job promotion, having children, etc. Those things cannot make you happier, but they can make you miserable. A bad relationship can make you miserable. A new job can be more stress. Children can be more stress.

These life milestones seem like a bad risk: if you succeed you gain no happiness, but if you fail you are miserable.

So here's my question: if major life events like marriage, children, and career cannot make me happier, but they can make me less happy, then why should I pursue them at all?

Another interesting question. One that touches more on our mundane lives. As you say there is no point in sustaining a relationship that makes you miserable (assuming you mean a voluntary one with another person - as there are other more formal relationships in our lives).

But, ok. you say We are told that we must become happy as single people before we are ready for a relationship. which is a pretty loose statement. I think we should sort ourselves out, a state of equanimity, before entering a relationship. Useless to try for one if we're say depressed or prone to anger not getting our way etc. And we should measure our expectations carefully.

I can't think of many I know who have said "I want a relationship. I'm happy now. I'll go and find one." They usually happen on the fly.

Here on earth its about companionship and what the participants bring to each other's lives. It's useful to be able to share some things; take an interest in what isn't shared - rely for things they do better than us. You could call on many examples from tradition that even these days of "equality" hold good. You have to work out ground rules together for the sake of reliance. But if the partnering brings strife and confrontation it's best to be honest and part.

It depends on what you see as "happy". To me, happy in a relationship means relaxed in it. If I can't trust the person on certain issues; if I feel I'm on the edge of slavery I can't relax. You can use the word "love" if you like but to me it isn't necessary - it resolves as acts and deeds, not words.

You're right though. If the life events you mention are unlikely to bring any kind of fulfilment then they're best avoided. Problem always is that you can't know until time allows
the relationship for develop some way at least. People change. Can they grow together?
♥

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Surf Rider

If I am happy and satisfied childless, why would I want children?

Being happy and satisfied is exactly WHY I never chose to do the marriage/family thing lol.

You're missing the "soul evolution" component in all your questions. Individual and collective soul evolution. Once one understands that specific aspect of human existence, the purpose of living makes complete sense. The reason for being happy and satisfied; the reason for sadness and depression; the very purpose of life itself... all makes complete sense.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Baile

You're missing the "soul evolution" component in all your questions. Individual and collective soul evolution. Once one understands that specific aspect of human existence, the purpose of living makes complete sense. The reason for being happy and satisfied; the reason for sadness and depression; the very purpose of life itself... all makes complete sense.

...and it isn't like I haven't tried to explain this either. =/

[Baile]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

...and it isn't like I haven't tried to explain this either. =/

That makes two of us, now we just need 98 more monkeys.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Baile

That makes two of us, now we just need 98 more monkeys.

Logically, we only need 97 more of them. I understand the whole concept (has read Chris Philpot).

[Baile]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

Logically, we only need 97 more of them.

2 + 97 = 99. After that we need 1 more (the hundredth monkey) else we'll remain stuck in the old consciousness-paradigm of not taking into account "soul evolution."

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Baile

2 + 97 = 99. After that we need 1 more (the hundredth monkey) else we'll remain stuck in the old consciousness-paradigm of not taking into account "soul evolution."

The individual awareness of the hundredth monkey is the hundredth monkey.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

The individual awareness of the hundredth monkey is the hundredth monkey.

It's a "collective" awareness thing and not an individual one. A tipping-point phenomenon, like the straw that broke the camel, and nothing to do with the hundredth monkey having a degree of individual awareness that the other 99 do not:

"Watson then concluded that the researchers observed that once a critical number of monkeys was reached, i.e., the hundredth monkey, this previously learned behavior instantly spread across the water to monkeys on nearby islands."

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Baile

It's a "collective" awareness thing and not an individual one. A tipping-point phenomenon, like the straw that broke the camel, and nothing to do with the hundredth monkey having a degree of individual awareness that the other 99 do not:

"Watson then concluded that the researchers observed that once a critical number of monkeys was reached, i.e., the hundredth monkey, this previously learned behavior instantly spread across the water to monkeys on nearby islands."

I understand that. I guess I'm just being way too esoteric for my own good here. It's not about having an awareness that 99 do not, but after 99 monkeys have that awareness and you gain it as well...voila, you become the 100th monkey yourself.

I also know about the monkeys of Japan washing sand away to get the rice that was mixed with it - a pretty phenomenal thing for monkeys to do.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

It's not about having an awareness that 99 do not, but after 99 monkeys have that awareness and you gain it as well...voila, you become the 100th monkey yourself.

Okay, I can grok that perspective. Similar to my own consciousness-shifting experiences with higher-self interaction.