"Pursuing meaning", for example, is merely one manifestation of "pursuing satisfaction/pursuing less discontentment". I see the latter as the root; the examples you gave are just more external manifestations of the innermost drive to seek satisfaction, which is why I place priority on the latter.
But what evidence do you have that 'less discontentment' is the innermost drive as opposed to any of the others?
For example, Evolutionary Psychologists might argue reproductive fitness is the "innermost drive" because it controls your actions even though you're not aware of it. That which you think brings you satisfaction is really only mechanisms evolved to enhance reproductive fitness, so your contentment or discontentment is merely the illusion that leads you to the goal of reproductive fitness. They would cite what they contend to be massive empirical evidence supporting these conclusions.
Psychologists who favor logotherapy might argue that meaning is a deeper drive since it is more connected to personal identity and strengthens the ego as opposed to passive avoidance.
In fact avoiding discontentment probably seems the most vague out of everything mentioned, and appears to require a lot of post hoc contemplation to rationalize.
The indictment can be seen from all of those perspectives. "Pursuit" of anything is a demonstration of a lack of "X", whatever "X" might be, and to lack something means something is not perfected.
A perfect square lacks curves. It is therefore not a perfect square?
Obviously false. A perfect square has no curves by definition.
It is not a lack not to possess a property that you do not have by definition.
Furthermore, pursuit of meaning doesn't mean that someone lacks meaning. Quite the contrary in fact, it means that they have it.
It appears your objection failed.
In any case let me press a point that I think you've overlooked be it intentionally or not.
If I have a desire to pursue a particular life goal, and can be perfectly content without it, and in fact grateful for all that I have been given, but pursue it anyway for the sheer joy and challenge, how at any step along that process am I discontent?
Furthermore, you argued previously that a perfect God wouldn't create imperfect beings then allow creation to just run away on its own. But aside from the actual creating, under your particular philosophy, isn't that exactly what a perfect being would do?
Yes (in the highest sense). It does not ultimately help one's self (the self suffers), and it does not benefit others to the highest degree. (This is with the understanding that quality of actions is seen in a continuum of degrees)
But there is no degree to which acting in the world to alleviate the suffering of others is superior to avoiding discontentment. That sounds pretty messed up.
This rationalization of the "higher sense" is reminiscent of Nietzsche's vagueness when he speaks of the "overman". You don't speak of the purer sense, or the happier sense, or the more loving sense. You've substituted a physical metaphor for a moral reality.
To me, that seems like you're biting the bullet on an inconsistent, or perhaps somewhat appalling ethical philosophy.
They continued to act as long as they possessed remaining kamma after achieving full awakening, called "nibbana with residue remaining". After the final exhaustion of all remaining kamma, they achieved parinibbana, a state from which they do not act at all.
So this is a kind of spiritual in-between state where they're kind of half alive and have purged themselves of all desire (necessary to avoid discontentment)? If that's a somewhat correct understanding, can you explain why that is preferable to regular living? It sounds rather empty to me.