People can argue “One can accept there is no true happiness in this world, but one must accept that world is full of sorrows, miseries and sufferings.”

Consider another illustration consisting of husband, wife, son, husband’s friend, house boy and neighbor. All of them have affections to each other. Then comes the news - husband is dead in an accident. Let us note the reactions.

Wife becomes totally nervous. She cannot put up with the news and collapses of fainting. Son starts weeping. Friend feels extremely sad. House boy looks gloomy. Neighbor does remark that it is very bad news, but continues with his routine work as usual.

Now there is another news - husband is alive! It was a case of mistaken identity. Let us note the reactions again.
Wife gets excited. She again cannot put up with the news and becomes unconscious because of unbearable joy. Son sheds tears of happiness. Friend feels extremely happy. House boy looks cheerful. Neighbor remarks that it is very good news and continues with his routine work as usual.

The rule then is, “If you are happy in possession of any material object, you’ll be unhappy to the equal extent when you lose the possession of that material object. The degree of happiness and unhappiness are exactly same.”
Thus, the origin of misery is again in the concept of assuming happiness in materialistic objects or persons.

There must be a firm decision that, “The world is devoid of happiness or misery and no matter whatever efforts one can make, no one can love anyone else till the eternal and infinite happiness is attained.”