When you have everything in life, but there is no joy

I often hear the phrase: “Everything is fine with me, but I don’t feel joy”. A person emphasizes that good things are happening in life: everything seems great with work, money is fine, family, health, social circle. At the same time, the inner state remains very heavy.

This story often arises among people who engage in self-reflection and want to find a true understanding of what is happening to them. And indeed, there is a state of unfounded anxiety, when you feel pain in your chest, some kind of tremor, discomfort. A person begins to reflect: what is this, what is the cause, but it is impossible to find the cause—it is as if it does not exist. That is, you feel uncomfortable without understanding why. This is a different state, but it makes it possible to compare it with the situation when everything seems fine, yet joy for some reason does not come.

If we look at society, a huge number of people broadcast an endless race for everything around them to be fine. At the same time, they say: “Everything is fine with me, and now it is very important to create this race so that everything will be fine for me.” By doing so, they show that in reality this external “everything is fine” is not directly proportional and is not in direct dependence on their own inner state—on how a person feels and what state they are in.

In such a state, a person begins to look for a problem: “Maybe the problem is still in relationships—I am closing myself off somewhere, I don’t see something,” “Maybe the problem is with the children—I just don’t feel it, I blocked myself.” An endless digging and searching for a problem inside begins. “Maybe the problem is at work or in business, I just don’t pay attention to it.”

First, it is worth understanding what the cause of the state that arises in you actually is. I recall situations when people ask: “Should I continue in business or close it?” And you understand that whatever answer you give, the person’s state will not change because of it. The person is not looking for a solution for the business—he is looking for a solution for himself. And when you are looking for a solution not for business, but for yourself, it is important to honestly admit: you can either help yourself or make a mistake for yourself, and at the same time something unclear may happen to the business or work.

I had such a case. In 2015, I owned one business and first stepped out of management. One of my acquaintances said: “You did the right thing for yourself, but not for the business. For you, it is probably not bad, but the business is unlikely to benefit from this.” And here it is very important to clearly understand what will actually happen and who will feel good where, and who will feel bad, when you make such decisions.

Another story comes to mind here. Recently I spent three weeks in Paris. When you come and live there for three weeks, while at home you have four children, a wife, various businesses, a lot of calls, responsibilities, work—a lot of everything—and you leave for Paris and are completely in your own mode, it is as if you are focused only on yourself. You do not need to monitor how the dog eats, you are not in family routine, you are not immersed in events related to home. You do not need to take care of the garden, you do not need to solve a huge number of everyday issues. You are in a different space, plus you are in Paris, and for many people the very fact of being in Paris is already something cool. You go somewhere, you look at something, relax, go to good restaurants, see beautiful people. For some it is architecture, for some fashion. A new space, interest. You left to live in Paris for three weeks.

My sister flew there to me for a few days, and I told her: “A huge number of people see this as something positive. But you can look at it in a completely different way.” You can say: “I am far from my children, I do not see them every morning and every evening. I sleep alone in a bed, not with my wife. I sleep in bed linen that I am not used to. In a hotel bedroom where at the same time there is a suitcase, shoes, and a computer. Here I sleep, here I drink coffee, here I can eat something—in a small room, not in my own big house. It is noisy outside, there are a huge number of people around, an unfamiliar space, a change of time zones, different air, different weather, different water, constant incomprehensible pressure. You need to completely restructure your schedule, spend a large amount of money. You eat not the way you are used to, and in fact you have no choice—you eat only in restaurants and still have to choose them. You are constantly in a state of certain nervous tension because of service and food quality.” That is, you can be in a fairly negative construction, in a negative situation.

It would seem that it is the same Paris. Nothing has changed. But it can be viewed from a very positive side, or from a very negative one.

In exactly the same way as now I am in the city and house where I live. I can say that I feel good based on the fact that every evening and every morning I see my wife, see my children. I can work in the garden, play the piano, meet with people I am used to, with the right partners. I am in my time zone, in my climate. I have the ocean nearby; I can calmly go there. In Paris, I cannot do this.

And at another moment, I can switch into a completely different state: “Again I am at home, again this routine, again a huge number of daily questions, problems, tasks that need to be solved.” And at that same moment turn the whole picture into a completely negative aspect.

Is it possible to be in a closed room and feel good, regardless of the fact that it is a closed room? Or likewise be in a cool, great place and still feel bad? What, then, is a person worried about?

A huge number of people, regardless of where they are, feel bad

Today you walk with your children and are in joy; tomorrow you walk with the same children, in the same situation, almost nothing has changed—and you are already in indignation.

So what affects the inner state of joy, comfort, happiness, harmony, calm living? Do you need to change external parameters for this—work, business, projects, people, wall colors, carpets, apartments, countries? Or is the problem not this at all?

People who move to another country very often encounter this effect. If a person starts to feel good, he says: “Here I feel good, and there it was not very good.” And if a person starts to feel bad, he says: “There it would be good for me, and here it is bad.” At the same time, the person truly does not understand why he feels bad or good.

Does the weather really affect this state, or simply being in a particular country? Or does a boss really influence a bad state? Or people who speak another language? Or the laws that are passed in that country? What exactly influences it? And who determines it?

If we look at the very concept of “good,” we will see that people define it differently. Recently I talked with my mother. It was early Saturday morning, I was preparing food for my dog. I live in the USA, in California, I have a dog—a Russian borzoi. I prepare food for her, and my mother asks me: “What do you put in it?” I start to explain that she has a raw diet: the main ration is raw meat, for example beef or lamb. The diet necessarily includes liver; there are additional offal items. This is quite serious nutrition and serious attention to nutrition. There are also vegetables, for example. My mother asks: “Do you add any vegetables?” I answer: “Yes, I add zucchini, sometimes broccoli.” She asks: “And what kind of grain do you make for her?” I say: “I make either buckwheat or quinoa.”

And to this my mother, who lives in Minsk, says: “If our pensioners saw you, they would certainly not understand this.” I answer: “Not only pensioners would not understand. If you calculate it, my dog eats about 500–600 dollars a month, and sometimes even 700–800 dollars.” And I do not just choose beef. I choose good quality beef—essentially the same one that I eat myself—or good quality lamb, or fish, and not farmed fish, but from a certain ocean, for example the Pacific, with a certain fat content. That is, you choose specific food. This is a very interesting aspect.

At the same time, many people say: “We feed the dog like a human.” They scoop up the leftovers of their own food, which they themselves ate, and give it to the dog. In essence, they poison the dog with this. And here the question arises: what is “good”? For many people, if they hear the amount in dollars, it will be “good” for the whole family. Someone will look at the appearance of the products, as my mother said: pensioners would look—and it would be unpleasant for them. Why unpleasant? Because the dog eats better. And the point here is not even how a person eats, although that too.

I remember how about twenty years ago I heard on TV that there are restaurants where the bill is more than 1000 dollars. My brain then could not understand this at all: what does it mean—a restaurant with a bill over 1000 dollars?! It was hard to comprehend. You do not understand the very fact of what is happening and begin to justify it: say that it is the same thing, just that people wanted it, that it is fashion, inadequacy. You start to explain it somehow, without even figuring it out. The same with how my dog eats. They say: “She eats well.” But for me, she does not eat very well, because I cannot find certain types of offal. It is difficult for me to buy them in the required quality and form, or I need to go somewhere for them.

Another example that I want to analyze is my grandmother. Throughout her life she always said: “The most important thing is that there is no war.” When you came to her, despite the fact that she lived in a space where she saw changes from wartime, from youth to the age when she already communicated with great-grandchildren via FaceTime, she still repeated: “The most important thing is that there is no war.” This is a very interesting attitude. For her, this was the definition of “everything is fine.” She had a specific, formed picture of what “good” is.

In the same way, many people form their own picture for themselves. Good is when there is a husband, a wife, two children, and three rooms. Or four rooms—good. Or five rooms—even better. Or maybe two rooms—also good. What is “good”? Also a dog—that is good. And if there is a summer house—even better. And if there are two summer houses? Or three? Or a house? Or a house in another country? And if a house is in Europe or America—that is absolutely great. And if on islands? And if you travel on vacation twice a year—that is good. And if once—that is also good. And if four times? And if eight? What is “good”? This is all social conditioning. Working eight hours a day—is that good? Two hours—good? Twelve? Sixteen? What is “good” at all? And is this directly connected with your inner state?

If you carefully listen to the space of reasoning about “good”—politicians, economists, psychologists, leaders, scientists, showmen, stars, bloggers—we will see an incredibly wide range of this concept. Someone will shout that “good” is not to work and live on passive income. Someone will say that “good” is to work 14 hours a day for the sake of the future; not to be happy now, but to work for the future and call this a “very good state.” Someone will say that good is to raise a child strictly so that he obeys, enters university, studies well, and then works. And someone will say that good is when you have mutual understanding with your child, when you are ready to hear each other, and most importantly—when you are ready to listen to the child, and everything else does not matter: neither universities, nor work, nor school, nor his relationships.

So what is “good” and what should be done about it?

How can one learn not to live in a state of a closed room with the attitude “the main thing is that there is no war”?

I heard this from my grandmother, and this statement has its place. Many will say: “Why are you touching pensioners and participants of the Great Patriotic War?” On the one hand, this statement has the right to exist. On the other hand, it has ruined millions of lives, because a huge number of manipulations are built on it.

You come and say: “There is a problem here.” They answer you: “There is no problem, the main thing is that there is no war.” You say: “How is there no problem if my arm was cut off?”—“It’s nothing, the main thing is that there is no war.” You say: “The exchange rate changed tenfold.” —“It’s nothing, the main thing is that there is no war.” Meat became ten times more expensive. —“It’s okay, we’ll manage.” A person cannot have children. —“It’s nothing, the main thing is that there is no war.” You were beaten on the street, deceived. —“Don’t think about it, the main thing is that the war didn’t start.” In the modern world, this is no longer millions, but hundreds of millions of crippled destinies and lives from the point of view of manipulating the concept of “good.”

An interesting aspect is what happens when a person builds certain “good” frameworks for himself and tries to adapt his inner state to them. He says: “If I am within these frameworks, then I will feel good.” And then he buys an additional carpet for the wall, plans another vacation, starts inviting guests, creates a YouTube channel, unsubscribes or subscribes to someone on Instagram, goes to the theater more often. He strengthens the external “good,” thinking that this will affect the inner state.

And then the picture of “everything is fine” collapses. For example, a person says: “The main thing is to have a family, to have a husband or wife, and to live together all our lives.” And suddenly—the person died or left for someone else. And you are left alone. What happens then? How does the person feel?

Or people lived in their country and said: “The main thing is that there is no war.” And suddenly—war. And today, in many countries, wars are happening that seemingly should not have happened under any circumstances. What should people do then? In what state are they, if their whole life, their whole cause-and-effect relationship, was built on the idea: if this does not exist, then everything is fine?

Or a person says: “The most important thing is that the child does not get sick.” Or: “The most important thing is that he does not die before us.” But if you look honestly, everyone will die. Children will also die. I have four children—and this is obvious. A person says to himself: “They will die, but after me.” And if you offer a person to honestly admit this, he will experience very different states depending on whether the child died before him or after. After—as if it is no longer his story. “The main thing is that it is like this.” On this, people lose a huge amount of energy. And most importantly—they live their whole lives in delusion.

I am not against dreams; the question is different: do you allow that this may not happen? And do you allow that something much better may happen?

When you arrive at this house or this apartment, you think that the very presence of this house will make you feel good. But do you understand that this can just be a good goal and that the very fact of buying or moving does not at all guarantee you a good inner state? And that you will not necessarily feel good just because this happened.

There is a very illustrative example. People often say: “Good is when you don’t have to work.” And I offer them a thought experiment: “Imagine that you start getting paid a million dollars a month, and at the same time you don’t have to do anything.” It is very important—do absolutely nothing from the point of view of work. But at the same time, you are obliged to sit in one place, come to work, be there, just be at work, but not work. Do absolutely nothing. For this, you get a million dollars a month. What will you choose?

People usually say: “Yes, I will easily choose this.” Then I ask: “And if you have to do this for 40 years?”—“No, I won’t choose 40 years.” And for a billion dollars a month—for 40 years? Someone says: “I’ll choose.” And here a nuance appears. There will be no vacations. You will always need to come. If you don’t come—you die immediately. A very strange state arises in a person. And then I start lowering the conditions. “Okay, not eight hours, but six.” —“I agree to six.” And four? —“I definitely agree to four.” And thirty minutes? —“Thirty minutes is no problem at all.” Okay, thirty minutes, but vacation is only twice a year for a week. Agree? And if I don’t come? —“I’ll die immediately.” And if I get sick, if transport breaks down, if I don’t come for these thirty minutes? —“You’ll die immediately.”

Recently I conducted a session in one of the groups and shared an important fact. Now I am in a period of life when I can work as much as I want during the day. I am involved in different businesses, different projects, boards of directors, but I am not operationally tied to them. I have the opportunity to regulate my day: I can do nothing all day, stare at the ceiling or go to the ocean, or I can open my computer and sit for 24 hours without a break.

And here there is another important point. My relationship with my wife is arranged in such a way that she will never in her life, if she knows that I am working, say: “It’s your time to bathe the children,” “It’s your time to read a book,” or “You need to do something now.” I have the opportunity to simply say: “I am working.”

And here freedom appears, this is a very interesting thing. It irritates a huge number of people around. The freedom not to work creates a huge number of problems. And sometimes I catch myself thinking that perhaps it would be easier if I had a job for 14 hours a day. When you leave for the office every morning and return in the evening. When you live in a pre-planned schedule, endless meetings, signing documents, trips with a driver. You have the same format every day. You have no time to think.

And here you constantly choose: go to the ocean, call a partner, hold a spiritual meeting, paint a picture, play the piano, record a video, meet a person in the valley, discuss an IT project, look at investments, go to a restaurant, fly to another country. And you are constantly in choice. So maybe the state where everything is scheduled in advance is “good”?

I already gave an example in this group that on the one hand this can create a problem, and on the other—create no problem at all. This freedom either gives you the opportunity to live a broad, rich life, or it does not. I know people who do not work and are happy about it. And they honestly say: “I am not going to work.” And I know people who work and say: “Without work, under no circumstances.”

Recently I talked with one woman. I ask: “How much do you want to earn?” She says: “I want 500 thousand.” I ask: “Do you understand that this may not happen?” She answers: “I don’t want to believe that.” I say: “Okay. And if you get a husband who earns 500 million dollars?” She says: “No, I don’t need that, it is important for me to earn myself.” I clarify: “So with equal love, you will not agree to be with a person who earns 500 million, but you will agree with someone who earns 500 thousand?”

And she freezes. Why? Because the state of “good,” tied to one’s own illusion of earnings, distorts the adequacy of perception of reality. When a person is fixated on the future “good” and believes that it is precisely this that will give him a super-state.

Even when you are now in a situation where everything seems to be fine, but inside it is bad—what happens? Someone begins to justify what is happening: “I don’t need big money, happiness is not in money. I can be happy eating a sausage instead of a $300 steak.” Yes, this is indeed not directly related to happiness. But this does not mean that money does not need to be earned. And this does not mean that big money automatically leads to tragedies, although there are indeed many examples when a person is better off without money than with money.

A person opens a business and immediately wants to solve his whole life: to earn money, and get happiness, and harmony, and joy, and development. But it is really important to separate business from life and honestly say: “I open this business for the sake of money. And I buy this thing because I like stylish things. Simply because I like it.” This allows you not to deceive yourself and to be in a clear perception of causes and effects.

It may seem that I am not giving a concrete solution. But the solution is precisely in this. The first and main thing is to stop living in the illusion that your inner state of joy, harmony, and happiness is directly connected with a set of “good” external conditions. Otherwise, you always place a bet, like a chip in a casino, on a certain probability. And when it does not match, it is impossible to cope with it. You become defenseless before life. You are not ready to calmly live through certain things.

Recently someone wrote: “Alexander easily talked with a child about death. This is strange. Usually, people do not talk to children about death.” I really gave an example where I discussed death with a child—someone else’s and potentially my own. And here the question is simple. What is more important: never talk to children about death out of fear of “attracting” it, which is absurd, because death surrounds us and we will all get there? Or learn to talk about it calmly, like an adult, adequate person who understands that everyone will die?

In my family, someone will definitely die earlier—I or my wife. And it is important to treat this calmly. If there is a probability that she will die earlier, I must be able to live life without her. Not because I am insensitive, but because this is adequacy. I can live without her for 40 years. Just as she can live without me. This is not about planning it, writing wills, or preparing for death, but about clearly understanding: this can happen at any moment.

A huge number of people, having lost a business, loved ones, or health, fall into a coma and do not continue to truly live from a state of awareness. And here it is very important not to deceive yourself.