jake, as an argument for buddhism

my boss' dog, jake, who in his puppyhood was trained as a service dog, used to pick up dropped food off the ground and give it to its rightful owner, with no thought of eating it himself.

he's been spoiled since, fed table scraps, and basically turned into a pretty serious beggar. i cannot tell you how much i think about this behavior change, and how much it speaks to the human condition (my brain never turns off).

jake always wants more. there can be no amount of human food or doggie treats that will satisfy him. (i assume) jake doesn't know this. he doesn't understand that what he desires will leave him empty. is he a happier dog now, having this desire? think about the dog he used to be: never being fed from the table, not knowing how to beg, and therefore never eating human food. was his life less meaningful, less fufilling, than it is now? think how sad for him now, KNOWING what delicious food he could be eating, but clearly, even when he gets it, never being satisfied by it (which statement i base on his undying request for more More MORE human food, no matter what). which one is better off? for me it seems clear: surely, ignorance is bliss.

this is my parable. desire (aka attachments) lead to a lack of fufillment (aka suffering).

let me say, the words are not from my own brain. i love the word attachment, way more than desire. but i don't much care for the word suffering; to me it implies despair, and that's just way too strong. but all the ways i can think of to describe this state of being sound like the words of a depressive. emptiness, meaninglessness, lack of fufillment, suffering.

more on attachments later.