He further iterates that the feelings should not mitigate the idea of possessing them as it brings in the guilt and the natural self defense every time the experience is re-thought with our ever questioning and remembering mind. He is very right and valid in the sense that possessing feelings makes us occupied with the whys more than the feeling itself. The core aim in all of his speculations and also matching the Buddhist view point is the individual's happiness. For the most part for Buddhists and Harris, the end goal is one's happiness. However, to me this is utterly wrong, so wrong that it defeats the idea of eradicating the notion for self. As soon as happiness becomes our central goal, we have accepted the state of being unhappy, which also puts us into the losing argument for the constant struggle towards thoughts and aspirations. Making ahead through social competition, unavoidably creates unhappiness to which many of us fall victims in the vicious cycle of latching on and off to the robe of happiness.
However, the goal should never be the one's happiness; the core idea of breaking one's barriers and spreading beyond self is to be able to see ourselves in everything around us. if happiness was the final goal, it would not only eventually lead to unhappiness but also it would be completely dishonest and disloyal regarding our existence for the benefit of our individual self. In fact, this wrong perception of self-lessness is so rampant not just in today's intellects, but also in centuries old Buddhist way. We should never strive for happiness, rather we should perceive it in the moments that is not destined and vulnerable to the erosion of time.
Why moments instead or measurably satisfying durations that we can not feel happy ? The life's dilemma, birth and death is tied to only one variable and that is time. If there was no time, birth and death would be meaningless words in our dictionaries but yet they are the reasons for our adherence to ever-seeking existence beyond time either in terms of spiritual means or through religious context. If we know the reasons for our struggle we can then figure out ways to resolve it. My speculation therefore starts after submiting to the fact that the time is responsible for our contradictions. If we can rid from time we should not try to defeat it to become happy as the very argument is mere pleading of our defeat. That is why the moments are our resolution in which we can be certain of its perfection without the worry of interrogating thoughts. The truth is we can not keep this state longer than the spontaneity. Having this moment is happiness or unhappiness; there is no definition of the feeling in this state, only the awe! The awe of being in an out of these moments are truly our only treasures in life. This is not necessarily happiness. It is the living and the non-living at the same time, it is the time we can feel attached to everything around but our self.
The happiness is a mere illusion of one's protecting self interests to the detriment of its surroundings. The argument is not only anti-socialist but also anti-buddhist and anti-humanist. Yet, we have always been dictated by everyone, every religion, every Buddhist, every intellect like Harris that in order to feel happy do this or that. No way! and no way is indeed the answer in which the argument of happiness is a false expectation just like unhappiness is. These opposite states drive us into despair; but then how can we cope with fatality ? Can we ever be happy without a home or a car or a better home or a better car? - the never ending desires from life -. The source of all this is due to our need to search for happiness. In reality, we can only feel the awe in the moments; the happy state can not be caught in a cage or in a bottle from which we can take some and get on with life, but only in the moments that are immortal, and that is not happiness but the awe of being aware of self-free.
