In the first very discourse with Ramana Maharshi from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, we hear him answer a crucial question about the nature of happiness. The talk is quoted in full:

A question was asked as to the nature of happiness.

M.: If a man thinks that his happiness is due to external causes and
his possessions, it is reasonable to conclude that his happiness must
increase with the increase of possessions and diminish in proportion
to their diminution. Therefore if he is devoid of possessions, his
happiness should be nil. What is the real experience of man? Does
it conform to this view?

In deep sleep the man is devoid of possessions, including his own
body. Instead of being unhappy he is quite happy. Everyone desires to sleep soundly. The conclusion is that happiness is inherent in
man and is not due to external causes. One must realise his Self in
order to open the store of unalloyed happiness.

The ordinary view is that happiness is dependent upon objects. It is incorrect, but we’ll need to “go through it” in order to open to the proper understanding, which is that happiness is objectless.

Let “possession” be equivalent to “object.” Then let the term “object” here be defined as whatever it is that changes. Then objects could include any of the following: health, wealth, relationships, good work, a face-to-face community, certain mental states, empirical or theoretical knowledge, and so on.

Considering that abiding happiness is inherent in our very being, how is it that this experiential understanding is avoided or overlooked?

In two ways:

1. One continues to try to find happiness in an object by specifying, again and again, which object is “good.” If one is in a relationship and it ends, then one concludes that one needs to find the right partner. One specifies. If one is not wealthy enough, then one specifies the amount of wealth one now “needs” in order to be happy. If one is doing decent work, one may look for “good” or “impactful” or “more impactful” work. See how, in this first outward-going approach, one continues to get caught on the view that “though this object isn’t right, a more fine-grained understanding of this sort of object would be right.” It ain’t so. The specifying, the refinement is just delaying the turn inward.
2. Or one may come up with an objective list theory of happiness, according to which one would need to have object A (health) together with B (wealth) and C (good relationships). Then one keeps getting snagged on the same problems in 1 above as well as the coordination problem. As for the latter, one might feel that work is “great” and relationships are “great,” but one’s health isn’t optimal. So, one keeps rejiggering these various knobs over and over again.

Both 1 and 2 are versions of samsara, of course. And they keep overlooking the obvious fact: nothing that’s changeable can ever enable one to secure abiding happiness. All objects are like sand passing through one’s fingers: try to hold on and see what happens.

And so, once one has had one’s fill with all attempts to find happiness in objects, one finally turns around and begins to open to that to which all objects are appearing. That is awareness; that is your self.

Early on, the mistake is to believe that awareness is a mental state; it is not; a mental state is another object and, as such, is changeable.

You are that unchangeable awareness to which all objects appear. Note that this unchangeable awareness is complete, and then note that dukkha is itself incompleteness, or lack.

Then see that this unchangeable awareness, being complete, is abiding happiness.