The Art of Happiness

by Dalai Lama

  Expanding Our Definition of Intimacy

  Virtually all researchers in the field of human relationships agree that intimacy is central to our existence. The influential British psychoanalyst John Bowlby wrote that, ‘Intimate attachments to other human beings are the hub around which a person’s life revolves . . . From these intimate attachments a person draws his strength and enjoyment of life and, through what he contributes, he gives strength and enjoyment to others. These are matters about which current science and traditional wisdom are at one.’

  It is clear that intimacy promotes both physical and psychological well-being. In looking at the health benefits of intimate relationships, medical researchers have found that people who have close friendships, people whom they can turn to for affirmation, empathy, and affection, are more likely to survive health challenges such as heart attacks and major surgery and are less likely to develop diseases such as cancer and respiratory infections. For example, one study of over a thousand heart patients at Duke University Medical Center found that those who lacked a spouse or close confidant were three times more likely to die within five years of the diagnosis of heart disease as those who were married or had a close friend. Another study of thousands of residents in Alameda County, California, over a nine-year period showed that those with more social support and intimate relationships had lower death rates overall and lower rates of cancer. And a study at the University of Nebraska School of Medicine of several hundred elderly people found that those with an intimate relationship had better immune function and lower cholesterol levels. Over the course of the past several years there have been at least a half-dozen massive investigations conducted by a number of different researchers looking at the relationship between intimacy and health. After interviewing thousands of people, the various investigators all seem to have reached the same conclusion: close relationships do, in fact, promote health.

  Intimacy is equally as important in maintaining good emotional health. The psychoanalyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm claimed that humankind’s most basic fear is the threat of being separated from other humans. He believed that the experience of separateness, first encountered in infancy, is the source of all anxiety in human life. John Bowlby agreed, citing a good deal of experimental evidence and research to support the idea that separation from one’s caregivers – usually the mother or father – during the latter part of the first year of life inevitably creates fear and sadness in babies. He feels that separation and interpersonal loss are at the very roots of the human experiences of fear, sadness, and sorrow.

  So, given the vital importance of intimacy, how do we set about achieving intimacy in our daily lives? Following the Dalai Lama’s approach outlined in the last section, it would seem reasonable to begin with learning – with understanding what intimacy is, seeking a workable definition and model of intimacy. In looking to science for the answer, however, it seems that despite the universal agreement among researchers about the importance of intimacy, that seems to be where the agreement ends. Perhaps the most striking feature of even a cursory review of the various studies on intimacy is the wide diversity of definitions and theories about exactly what intimacy is.

  At the most concrete end of the spectrum is the author Desmond Morris, who writes about intimacy from the perspective of a zoologist trained in ethology. In his book, Intimate Behavior, Morris defines intimacy: ‘To be intimate means to be close . . . In my terms, the act of intimacy occurs whenever two individuals come into bodily contact.’ After defining intimacy in terms of purely physical contact, he then goes on to explore the countless ways in which humans come into physical contact with one another, from a simple pat on the back to the most erotic sexual embrace. He sees touch as the vehicle through which we comfort one another and are comforted, via hugs or clasps of the hand and, when those avenues are not available to us, more indirect means of physical contact such as a manicure. He even theorizes that the physical contact we have with objects in our environment, from cigarettes to jewelry to waterbeds, act as substitutes for intimacy.

  Most investigators are not so concrete in their definitions of intimacy, agreeing that intimacy is more than just physical closeness. Looking at the root of the word intimacy, from the Latin intima meaning ‘inner’ or ‘innermost,’ they most often subscribe to a broader definition, such as the definition offered by Dr. Dan McAdams, author of several books on the subject of intimacy: ‘The desire for intimacy is the desire to share one’s innermost self with another.’

  But definitions of intimacy don’t stop there. On the opposite end of the spectrum from Desmond Morris stand experts such as the father and son psychiatrist team, Drs. Thomas Patrick Malone and Patrick Thomas Malone. In their book, The Art of Intimacy, they define intimacy as ‘the experience of connectivity.’ Their understanding of intimacy begins with a thorough examination of our ‘connectivity’ with other people, but they do not, however, limit their concept of intimacy to human relationships. Their definition is so broad, in fact, that it includes our relationship with inanimate objects – trees, stars, and even space.

  Concepts of the most ideal form of intimacy also vary throughout the world and history. The romantic notion of that ‘One Special Person’ with whom we have a passionate intimate relationship is a product of our time and culture. But this model of intimacy is not universally accepted among all cultures. For instance, the Japanese seem to rely more on friendships to gain intimacy, whereas Americans seek it more in romantic relationships with a boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse. In noting this, some researchers have suggested that Asians who tend to be less focused on personal feelings such as passion and are more concerned with the practical aspects of social attachments appear less vulnerable to the kind of disillusionment that leads to the crumbling of relationships.

  In addition to variations among cultures, concepts of intimacy have also dramatically changed over time. In colonial America, the level of physical intimacy and proximity was generally greater than it is today, as family and even strangers shared close spaces and slept together in one room and used a common room for bathing, eating, and sleeping. Yet the customary level of communication among spouses was quite formal by today’s standards – not much different from the way acquaintances or neighbors spoke to one another. Only a century later, love and marriage became highly romanticized and intimate self-disclosure was expected to be an ingredient in any loving partnership.

  Ideas of what is considered to be private and intimate behavior had also changed over time. In seventeenth century Germany, for instance, a new husband and wife were expected to consummate their marriage on a bed carried by witnesses who would validate the marriage.

  How people express their emotions has also changed. In the Middle Ages it was considered normal to publicly express a wide range of feelings with great intensity and directness – joy, rage, fear, piety, and even pleasure at torturing and killing enemies. Extremes of hysterical laughter, passionate weeping, and violent rage were expressed much more than would be accepted in our society. But the commonplace expression of emotions and feelings in that society ruled out the concept of emotional intimacy; if one is to display all emotions openly and indiscriminately, then there are no private feelings left to express to a special few.

  Clearly, the notions we take for granted about intimacy are not universal. They change over time and are often shaped by economic, social, and cultural conditions. And it is easy to become confused by the variety of different contemporary Western definitions of intimacy – with manifestations ranging from a haircut to our relationship with Neptune’s moons. So where does this leave us in our quest to understand what intimacy is? I think that the implication is clear: There is an incredible diversity among human lives, infinite variations among people with respect to how they can experience a sense of closeness. This realization alone offers us a great opportunity. It means that at this very moment we have vast resources of intimacy available to us. Intimacy is all around us.

&
nbsp; Today, so many of us are oppressed by a feeling of something missing in our lives, intensely suffering from a lack of intimacy. This is particularly true when we go through the inevitable periods in our life when we’re not involved in a romantic relationship or when the passion wanes from a relationship. There’s a widespread notion in our culture that deep intimacy is best achieved within the context of a passionate romantic relationship – that Special Someone who we set apart from all others. This can be a profoundly limiting viewpoint, cutting us off from other potential sources of intimacy, and the cause of much misery and unhappiness when that Special Someone isn’t there.

  But we have within our power the means to avoid this; we need only courageously expand our concept of intimacy to include all the other forms that surround us on a daily basis. By broadening our definition of intimacy, we open ourselves to discovering many new and equally satisfying ways of connecting with others. This brings us back to my initial discussion of loneliness with the Dalai Lama, a discussion triggered by a chance perusal of the ‘Personals’ section of a local newspaper. It makes me wonder. At the very moment that those people were composing their ads, struggling to find just the right words that would bring romance into their lives and end the loneliness, how many of those people were already surrounded by friends, family, or acquaintances – relationships that could easily be cultivated into genuine and deeply satisfying intimate relationships? Many, I would guess. If what we seek in life is happiness, and intimacy is an important ingredient of a happier life, then it clearly makes sense to conduct our lives on a model of intimacy that includes as many forms of connection with others as possible. The Dalai Lama’s model of intimacy is based on a willingness to open ourselves to many others, to family, friends, and even strangers, forming genuine and deep bonds based on our common humanity.

  * The Cabinet of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

  CHAPTER 6

  Deepening Our Connection to Others

  One afternoon following his public lecture, I arrived at the Dalai Lama’s hotel suite for my daily appointment. I was a few minutes early. An attendant discreetly glided into the hallway, to relate that His Holiness was occupied in a private audience and would be several more minutes. I assumed my familiar post outside his hotel suite door and used the time to review my notes in preparation for our session, trying at the same time to avoid the suspicious gaze of a security guard – the same look perfected by convenience store clerks for use on junior high school students loitering around the magazine racks.

  Within a few moments, the door opened and a well-dressed middle-aged couple were shown out. They looked familiar. I remembered that I had been briefly introduced to them several days earlier. I had been told that the wife was a well-known heiress and the husband an extremely wealthy high-powered Manhattan attorney. At the time of introduction we had only exchanged a few words, but they had both struck me as unbelievably haughty. As they emerged from the Dalai Lama’s hotel suite I noted a startling change. Gone was the arrogant manner and smug expression, and in their place were two faces suffused with tenderness and emotion. They were like two children. Streams of tears ran down both faces. Although the Dalai Lama’s effect on others was not always so dramatic, I noticed that invariably others responded to him with some shift of emotion. I had long marveled at his ability to bond with others, whatever their walk of life, and establish a deep and meaningful emotional exchange.

  Establishing Empathy

  While we had spoken of the importance of human warmth and compassion during our conversations in Arizona, it wasn’t until some months later at his home in Dharamsala that I had an opportunity to explore human relationships with him in greater detail. By that time I was very eager to see if we could discover an underlying set of principles that he uses in his interactions with others – principles that might be applied to improve any relationship, whether it be with strangers, family, friends, or lovers. Anxious to begin, I jumped right in. ‘Now, on the topic of human relationships . . . what would you say is the most effective method or technique of connecting with others in a meaningful way and of reducing conflicts with others?’

  He glared at me for a moment. It wasn’t an unkindly glare, but it made me feel as if I had just asked him to give me the precise chemical composition of moon dust.

  After a brief pause, he responded, ‘Well, dealing with others is a very complex issue. There is no way that you can come up with one formula that could solve all problems. It’s a bit like cooking. If you are cooking a very delicious meal, a special meal, then there are various stages in the cooking. You may have to first boil the vegetables separately and then you have to fry them and then you combine them in a special way, mixing in spices and so on. And finally, the end result would be this delicious product. Similarly here, in order to be skillful in dealing with others, you need many factors. You can’t just say, “This is the method” or “This is the technique.” ’

  It wasn’t exactly the answer I was looking for. I thought he was being evasive and felt that surely he must have something more concrete to offer. I pressed on: ‘Well, given that there is no single solution to improving our relationships, are there perhaps some more general guidelines that might be useful?’

  The Dalai Lama thought for a moment before replying, ‘Yes. Earlier we spoke of the importance of approaching others with the thought of compassion in one’s mind. That is crucial. Of course, just telling someone, “Oh, it’s very important to be compassionate; you must have more love” isn’t enough. A simple prescription like that alone isn’t going to work. But one effective means of teaching someone how to be more warm and compassionate is to begin by using reasoning to educate the individual about the value and practical benefits of compassion. And also having them reflect on how they feel when someone is kind to them and so on. In a sense this primes them, so there will be more of an effect as they proceed in their efforts to be more compassionate.

  ‘Now in looking at the various means of developing compassion, I think that empathy is an important factor. The ability to appreciate another’s suffering. In fact, traditionally, one of the Buddhist techniques for enhancing compassion involves imagining a situation where there is a sentient being suffering – for instance, like a sheep about to be slaughtered by the butcher. And then try to imagine the suffering that the sheep may be going through and so on . . .’ The Dalai Lama stopped for a moment to reflect, absently running a string of prayer beads through his fingers. He commented, ‘It occurs to me that if we were dealing with someone who was very cold and indifferent, then this kind of technique may not be very effective. It would be as if you were to ask the butcher to do this visualization: the butcher is so hardened, so used to the whole thing, that it wouldn’t have any impact. So, for example, it would be very difficult to explain and utilize that technique for some Westerners who are accustomed to hunting and fishing for fun, as a form of recreation . . .’

  ‘In that case,’ I suggested, ‘it might not be an effective technique to ask a hunter to imagine the suffering of his prey, but you might be able to awaken feelings of compassion by beginning with having him visualize his favorite hunting dog caught in a trap and squealing with pain . . .’

  ‘Yes, exactly . . .’ agreed the Dalai Lama. ‘I think depending on the circumstances one might modify that technique. For instance, the person may not have a strong feeling of empathy towards animals but at least may have some empathy towards a close family member or friend. In that case the person could visualize a situation where the beloved person is suffering or going through a tragic situation and then imagine how he or she would respond to that, react to that. So one can attempt to increase compassion by trying to empathize with another’s feeling or experience.

  ‘I think that empathy is important not only as a means of enhancing compassion, but I think that generally speaking, when dealing with others on any level, if you’re having some difficulties, it’s extremely helpful to be able to try to put yourself in the other pe
rson’s place and see how you would react to the situation. Even if you have no common experience with the other person or have a very different lifestyle, you can try to do this through imagination. You may need to be slightly creative. This technique involves the capacity to temporarily suspend insisting on your own viewpoint but rather to look from the other person’s perspective, to imagine what would be the situation if you were in his shoes, how you would deal with this. This helps you develop an awareness and respect for another’s feelings, which is an important factor in reducing conflicts and problems with other people.’