**1. Introduction**

Serious research into happiness only began in the 1970s. Major life areas such as relationships, work, money, health, and leisure were explored along with a plethora of minor ones [1]. However, as the research developed it became clear that happiness and its causes was very elusive. Researchers found that the life areas that made a difference only made up a small percentage of happiness ranging from 5 to 8% [1, 2] up to 15% [3]. This led researchers to see that life circumstances had a counter-intuitively small impact. And the reason for this was that happiness was more influenced by mental factors.

Researchers began to move their emphasis to more subjective processes like cognition and affect [4]. Over time the consensus was that happiness was a compound of objective conditions and subjective processes [5]. The term subjective well-being (SWB) assumed popularity [6], and included the role of emotions, and a range of mental or cognitive processes that evaluated life conditions to deliver satisfaction with one's life [7].

The way that people regulated their happiness was seen to be an inbuilt biological mechanism that responded to challenging events. For example, theories like adaptation level theory [8], the hedonic treadmill model [9], and the Dynamic Equilibrium Model [10], attempted to explain that people can maintain a relatively stable level of well-being, by adapting to distressing events so they can return to their previous levels of happiness [11].

Happiness was seen to be under a type of homeostatic control, but within a setpoint, that made sure that people mostly return to their previous view of themselves and their lives [12]. When life events have an impact [13], it seems like we have an autonomous self-regulating system of internal buffers (e.g., reframing), and external buffers (e.g., social support) that kick in and recalibrate us back to baseline [14].

However, when people are asked how satisfied they with their life, people generally report themselves to be only three-quarters satisfied [15]. Whilst of course there is a range, it is curious why the typical approach to happiness only delivers a partially satisfied outcome. Hence in view of the research that interventions can impact happiness [16], we ask are there any approaches that deliver a fully satisfied result. That is, could people increase their self-reported happiness beyond the 75% norm, up to 100% satisfied.

This chapter explores whether happiness can be an unchanging attribute of a fully functional human being. For some reason this inquiry is missed in the research focus, and instead the bar is lowered to focus more on topics like how to build resilience and strengthen adaptation to crisis. Whilst building and maintaining mental health should be a key concern in clinical research, it is somewhat surprising that there is a comparative paucity of research into the upper end of well-being. Is it because the dominant paradigm currently does not have any viable concepts or methodologies that could deliver a 100% satisfied human being?

This concern is shared by some authors who criticise the limited parameters of the dominant models of happiness. For example, Vittersø [17] asserts that the conventional evaluation of subjective well-being (SWB) misses important dimensions such as openness, growth, and indeed self-actualisation. It is reasonable to ask why, in the dominant models in psychological research, we cannot find a construct of happiness that includes the full continuum from fluctuating to stable and uninterrupted wellbeing. To not address this may be to leave us with a less than optimal paradigm that misses the fullness of human potential.

This new discussion addresses a possible gap in the well-being literature – whether it is possible to experience SWB, or more commonly happiness, that does not fluctuate in response to life changes. As such we define happiness as the experience of well-being that does not fluctuate in response to changing life conditions. That is can someone not just develop resilience to fluctuating life conditions but can also transcend these and be happy for no reason. Like Aristotle's argument that all things have a function, and their meaning is found in the full expression of that function [18], when we are fully happy, could that be when we find our meaning?

Should we be content with partial happiness if we have potential for more. And if so, what is the upper end of human potential when it comes to happiness? Is it in fact possible that the type of enduring well-being that we are looking at may be able to transcend its relationship to life conditions, rather than be derived from them? If so, what could uninterrupted or fully satisfied happiness look like, and what are the mechanisms for its achievement?

To expand our current model of happiness, we would benefit from taking a multidisciplinary approach that offers new vantage points [19]. One such avenue is the very

### *Nondual Well-Being - The Evolution of Happiness DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106770*

exploration of the paradigms that argue for the nondual or enlightened states, as it is these methodologies that propose that they can deliver uninterrupted well-being or happiness that transcends the status of our life conditions.

For example, if we turn to the mindfulness field that has attracted much attention in recent years, we find that its source, traditional mindfulness, and its paradigm of enlightenment, argues for the possibility of uninterrupted happiness [20]. It maintains, however, that the sense of a self that is core in psychological theory, is in fact the very thing responsible for such fluctuations in well-being. It argues that it is unnecessarily constructed, and when it misidentifies with the biological drives to minimise pain and maximise pleasure, it becomes at the mercy of our fluctuating life conditions. As they rise and fall, so too does our happiness.

By contrast enlightenment is a dissolving of the sense of self that misidentifies with impermanent phenomena. This in turn is seen to deliver an experience that is not subject to change, one that has transcended the impact of life conditions, and as such is ongoingly happy. Seen as an endpoint of training [21], enlightenment we could say fits the description of full satisfaction (100%) and as such transcends the normal setpoint range (75%) of only partially satisfied well-being.

This literature documents advanced practitioners (long term meditators) who attain very different 'states' than the typical assumptions of conventional well-being or happiness. For example, advanced exponents of the contemplative traditions report being able to disengage from distracting mental processes [22] and enter selftranscendent states [23] not affected by life conditions. Documented as transpersonal [24], anomalous [25], nondual [26], mystical [27] or religious experiences [28] it seems of benefit to turn our focus to these advanced states, as they are most relevant to our inquiry.

One of our difficulties, however, is their differing points of reference and nomenclature. As such it may be of value to highlight their common ground. Essentially, these states all refer to both a dissolution of the sense of a separate self and a perception of oneness or sense of connectedness to others and one's surroundings [29]. Awakening to what is commonly called the "nondual" experience (not derived from relative conditions hence not dualistic in nature), is typically seen to result from the incremental removing of cognitive, perceptual, and sensory layers [30], leading to a mystical state of consciousness [31].

Joseph Campbell's [32] hero's journey is a secular approach that outlines what he sees as the requisite stages of development leading to this nondual experience. In his model, 17 stages are organised into three sections: departure, initiation, and return, during which the budding hero undergoes a moral, mental, emotional, physical, and finally spiritual transformation. Transpersonal theorists such as Maslow present it as a journey towards the progressive dissolution of the ego, leading to the pinnacle - selfrealisation or a "self-less" state [33].

However, whilst there is certainly literature on these states and stages [34], conventional research into well-being and happiness does not yet have model that leads to them [35]. By contrast, the traditional origins of mindfulness, Buddhist psychology, has undergone much scientific scrutiny in recent years [36, 37], and is well positioned for this inquiry. And yet all the ancient wisdom traditions have also been studying the fundamentals of human happiness, usually for millennia. And when we explore their paradigms, we find the same claims that full satisfaction is the actualisation of our human potential.

Common to all these traditions is the claim that their most actualised practitioners, have achieved high levels of well-being and often super functionality [38].

Sometimes described as saints, mystics, rinpoches or avatars, the terms they use might instead are "at peace", "content", "perfect". In the meditation and yoga traditions, mastery is mapped by a progression through these stages of spiritual development, leading to the perfection of human potential or enlightenment. And to back this up, these traditions all propose methods to achieve these qualities.

If we look at early mythical literature there is often a delineation between humans and gods, and to assume any personal power would be to commit hubris and guarantee your demise. However, this is typically not the case in the religious traditions, in fact, whilst religions may be millennia old and littered with similar stories of great feats, they offer a method of perfection for humans to follow (e.g., the way of the bodhisattva) which is often grounded in a methodology that is repeatable or testable [39]. And it appears that science is now entering a dialogue with these traditions to understand and test them [40].

One drawback however is there is not a clear link between these traditional notions of "nondual" happiness and our conventional paradigms of well-being. As pointed out by Sahdra et al. [41], whilst there may overlap, the mechanisms that underpin these nondual states, have no clear equivalent in conventional theory. If they could be better understood, they may assist us in finding a way to access the potential for uninterrupted happiness. Furthermore, it is possible, that once better acquainted with their content, that we will be able to evaluate the potential of their methods and explore how to assimilate them into western models.

### **2. Metaphysics and empiricism**

However, before we can investigate these methodologies, we must address the often-antithetical relationship between religion and science, and the western materialist or pragmatist scientific approach to claims of perfection, or full satisfaction of our potential. Akin to the phenomenon of the tall poppy syndrome, where anyone that stands taller than others serves as a threat to be cut down, we instead need to cultivate a curiosity towards the opportunities of perfection offered by such methodologies.

Whilst currently mindfulness is being scientifically scrutinised, the investigation of other traditions and their advanced practices, with a few exceptions, is receiving little attention [42, 43]. One of the challenges is the scientific method or the data gathering approach often inherent in research. That is, the materialist or reductionist premise that if it cannot be verified it does not exist "Of that which we can't speak about, we should remain silent" ([44], p. 189).

The challenge with scientific scrutiny is that it is necessarily limited to the evaluation of phenomena (and the sophistication of its instruments), and in the case of mindfulness, although some of its neuroscientific correlates may be able to be measured, the ultimate state and its subsequent attributes are non-conceptual and nonphenomenological. St Augustine aptly highlighted this quandary in the fifth century by famously saying "Si comprehendis, non est Deus" or "If you understood him, it would not be God" [45]. Psychology has always careered between the art and science of experience in its attempt to negotiate the intangible realm of thought (cognitivism) and the tangible world of behaviour (radical behaviourism). If we are to investigate the possibility of perfection, or completely happy, we will need to explore claims that, whilst possibly maybe quite natural, are not currently easy to verify.

### *Nondual Well-Being - The Evolution of Happiness DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106770*

Buddhist scholar Alan Wallace makes some salient comments relevant to such an inquiry: "In Buddhism, these are not miracles in the sense of being supernatural events, any more than the discovery and amazing uses of lasers are miraculoushowever they may appear to those ignorant of the nature and potentials of light. Such contemplatives claim to have realized the nature and potentials of consciousness far beyond anything known in contemporary science. What may appear supernatural to a scientist, or a layperson may seem perfectly natural to an advanced contemplative, much as certain technological advances may appear miraculous to a contemplative" ([46], p. 103). Interestingly as early as the thirteenth century medieval Christian theologians were grappling with this same issue and ended up making the distinction between 'miracles' (miracula) and 'marvels' (mirabilia). Marvels were defined as having natural causes that were not understood, whilst miracles were unusual events produced by God's power [47].

The modern materialist position about consciousness is that mind is only the result of physiological processes; that each person's consciousness is a discrete and separate entity; communication is only possible through the physiological senses; and that consciousness dwells only within the time/space continuum [48]. As such research is typically conducted within the constraints of this paradigm. Nevertheless, like the burgeoning field of mindfulness there is also a growing amount of theory, empirical observation and now neuroscience research [49] within the parapsychology literature that also does not fit within this model [50]. In view of that, and to investigate the nondual, advanced altered states of consciousness, and their consequent attributes, current consciousness paradigms need ongoing investigation and revision.

The Dalai Lama, offers some guiding principles to the study of mindfulness [51], including scientific responsibility. "I am well aware, however, of the danger of tying spiritual belief to any scientific system…Great vigilance must be maintained at all times when dealing in areas about which we do not have great understanding. This, of course, is where science can help." He then goes on to also encourage open mindedness towards states achieved through advanced practice "After all, we consider things to be mysterious only when we do not understand them. Through mental training, we have developed techniques to do things which science cannot yet adequately explain" ([52], pp. 230–243). Considering the above qualifications, we now move to a brief investigation of the theories proposed by major religious practices, in an attempt to forward the inquiry into the science of happiness.
