hello everybody.
when the time came to deal with happiness,
asked the philosopher to explain to his student, why a person can never be happy.
in the human nature, explained the philosopher,
if he has 50 he wants a 100
therefore he'll never be happy.
isn't it , friends, reminding you of the sages,
but agree with me, philosopher is more known.
the student insisted not to accept what the philosopher said,
your honour assumes, said the student
that a human wants always more, and therefore he'll never have what he wants.
but that's an assumption,
what will happen your honour if we assume that it's not true?
so to say, if we assume that a person wants 50 and he has 50 and he doesn't want another50,
will we then also say that he's not happy?
even if we assume, tald him the philosopher, even then he woun't be happy.
but why? asks the student, he has 50, he doesn't want 100
why isn't he happy?
simple, answered him the philosopher.
you state that he's happy becouse he has 50 and he dosn't want more, right?
right!
from here, continues the philosopher,
it can be concluded that he's happy only becouse he has 50.
and from here it can be concluded that if he wants to stay happy,
he has to watch over the 50 that make him happy,
but when you watch - you worry and when you worry - there's no time to be happy.
understand?
let's assume that you're right, says the student,
but what will happen if we assume that he wants 50,
and he has 50 and he watches them and he doesn't have spare time to be happy,
but if he dies with the 50, won't we be able to determine retroactively that he died happy?
really no, laughed the philosopher.
if we assume that a person wants 50 and no more,
and also he watches over them all his life,
and also if he dies together with them, he doesn't die happy,
why?
becouse this we know,
but he's already dead and dead aren't happy.
therefore it's possible to determine that he wasn't happy not in his life and not in his death.
so friends, even if the philosopher is annoying, it's very hard to cope with his statement.
and today, today it's not only connected to philosophy,
today it's already established by research.
in a generation of abundance like ours, it's clear to almost everyone
that the thouhgt "if i have. ...then i'll be happy"
is an illusion.
and though that it's hard for us to accept it, those who tried this way tetify
that it's painfully accurate.
if we still hold this thought,
maybe it's worthwhile to listen to the impossible conditions, the method of "when i have" infolds,
the Saba from Novardok counts them,
and he writes:
"that he has as much as he wants and he doesn't need to worry about anything,
and he has a good apartment and all the material needs and cash for a needy time
and the trade runs well, and all his possetions are under excellent guard
and he has no enemies who want to avenge him,
and there's peace in the world and he's healthy and honoured by his surroundings and his oppinion is accepted
and there's nobody to lower his worth and he's not under any mans' rule and everything he does he succeeds."
did you understand friends? no chance.
if we build on happiness dependent on external factors,
all these factors, have to be present by us.
not partially, all!
becouse if one of them is lacking, we right away come back to the worry of the man with 50.
and the worry, as well known, doesn't enable people to be happy.
so what should be done? you ask.
the truth, not much. simply building a suka.
how is it connected?
so, did you ever ask yourself,
why do we build the suka when we build it in the time of harvest of fruit from the granary and from vinery?
why in the days when we count the money we get out to a suka of a hundred shekel?
why at the holiday of the most "none" there is, we're ordered to rejoyce?
why?
to teach us the secret of happiness.
the exit from the home to a temporary dwelling place, specially while counting the stock
it is intended to remind us the secret of joy.
joy is a result of perfection.
perfection is impossible by whom that his happiness depends on external factors.
it's not that the problem is by us, the problem is in the system! it's simply impossible.
if the happiness depends on the granary and vinery,
we have to worry till the harvest is gathered - there should be a harvest.
and after it's gathered - it should be safe and not get lost.
so when will we be happy?
in the command of getting out to the suka, the tora teaches us that if we trully want to get to joy and happiness,
we have to change the disk, we have to understand the secret of joy.
to understand that instead of the happiness being dependent of external factors that don't depend on us,
that it should be dependent on factors inside of us.
and nobody can take it from us.
that instead of investing in the 50 left behind, to invest in only what's left with us forever.
may be it's the reason why Simhat Tora is in the end of Sukot.
why?
becouse it's not a big wisdom to say, how we don't get to happiness,
the wisdom is also to suggest an alternative.
life that is based on an eternal tora, is built on what's inside of us, not on what's outside.
such life, doesn't end when the body is burried,
but, this the philosopher didn't know.
why not?
becouse when the greek were busy assuming assumptions, the jews were busy building suka.
happy holloday!