Suffering

[ananda]

This is the logical reason why Buddhism never fully satisfied me. It defeats itself. If one truly does away with aversion and grasping, then there is no reason to be a Buddhist (or to do anything else, for desire for what we believe will be good and beneficial drives every one of our actions).

The Buddha stated that his Way was like a raft which should be used as far as it is helpful, and discarded when it has taken one across the shore of suffering. One does not strap a raft to his back after using it to cross a river. Or, as Ven. Ananda taught, one might possess a desire to reach the town of X, but when one reaches that town, he no longer possesses that same desire, because he is there.

But you will never find a Buddhist martyr. You will never find a Buddhist who despises suffering in favor of a higher principle altogether, a principle which brings with it a joy that transforms suffering into an inconvenience.

One of Buddha's direct disciples, Venerable Moggalana, could be considered a martyr. But why should I find a Buddhist martyr?

What is a higher principle than eternal peace?

 

[zippy2006]

The Buddha stated that his Way was like a raft which should be used as far as it is helpful, and discarded when it has taken one across the shore of suffering.

Why use the raft at all? Why avoid the river and grasp at the raft? It doesn't make sense on a Buddhist reading.

Obviously the Buddha tried, at many points, to avoid this difficulty, but it seems to me that he failed.

Or, as Ven. Ananda taught, one might possess a desire to reach the town of X, but when one reaches that town, he no longer possesses that same desire, because he is there.

Why grasp at reaching the town?

What is a higher principle than eternal peace?

Ought one desire eternal peace rather than suffering? I thought the Buddhist was to neither battle nor embrace suffering? A desire for eternal peace seems to be at the same time a desire to leave suffering behind.

Many might say that evil is also sought by some for its own sake, as a form of perverse pleasure (which also relieves suffering, in a sense).

I would say the "many" are badly mistaken. They seek the pleasure, not the evil.

 

[ananda]

Why use the raft at all? Why avoid the river and grasp at the raft? It doesn't make sense on a Buddhist reading. Obviously the Buddha tried, at many points, to avoid this difficulty, but it seems to me that he failed. Why grasp at reaching the town?

The raft is the Dhamma which helps one across the river of samsara and its suffering, to the other shore which represents Nibbana. One grasps at reaching the town, which also represents Nibbana. Once one reaches Nibbana, he no longer grasps for it. It makes sense to me.

Ought one desire eternal peace rather than suffering? I thought the Buddhist was to neither battle nor embrace suffering? A desire for eternal peace seems to be at the same time a desire to leave suffering behind.

By neither battling or embracing suffering, one reaches eternal peace.

I would say the "many" are badly mistaken. They seek the pleasure, not the evil.

Yet, they seek it through evil.

 

[zippy2006]

The raft is the Dhamma which helps one across the river of samsara and its suffering, to the other shore which represents Nibbana. One grasps at reaching the town, which also represents Nibbana. Once one reaches Nibbana, he no longer grasps for it. It makes sense to me.

By neither battling or embracing suffering, one reaches eternal peace.

Which is just to say that, "By neither battling nor embracing suffering, one is successfully able to avoid suffering." It is just battling by a different name. "Buddhism is just a more robust way to avoid suffering."

It follows that if the Buddhist thinks Buddhism is true, then he doesn't see suffering as foundational. It is a temporary reality that gives way to the cessation of suffering.

 

[ananda]

Which is just to say that, "By neither battling nor embracing suffering, one is successfully able to avoid suffering." It is just battling by a different name. "Buddhism is just a more robust way to avoid suffering."

The word "battling" is active. Following the Way of Buddhadhamma is the process of eliminating such activity, which results in elimination of suffering. So, it is not accurate to say that we are battling suffering.

It follows that if the Buddhist thinks Buddhism is true, then he doesn't see suffering as foundational. It is a temporary reality that gives way to the cessation of suffering.

Suffering is foundational - only in samsara.

 

[Deidre32]

Or...perhaps we just don't see suffering as being a positive, when in fact, if we never suffer, we never grow. Buddhism teaches to not cling to suffering, that pain is inevitable but suffering is an option, so to speak. Meaning that we can experience painful situations, feel them entirely, but we don't need to stay put there, and suffer through every day. It's not an easy concept, I'll say that. lol

 

[ananda]

Or...perhaps we just don't see suffering as being a positive, when in fact, if we never suffer, we never grow. Buddhism teaches to not cling to suffering, that pain is inevitable but suffering is an option, so to speak. Meaning that we can experience painful situations, feel them entirely, but we don't need to stay put there, and suffer through every day. It's not an easy concept, I'll say that. lol

"Growth" is characteristic of samsara ... so, yes, if someone wishes to grow, they are in essence choosing to remain within the round of rebirth in samsara, and thus continue to experience pains and sufferings. They choose to continue to "play the game" so to speak. (The game being, a fragment of the Infinite experiencing what it's like to be finite).

Those who see no need for further growth in samsara pursue the option to "exit the game," by reaching for Nibbana.

 

[zippy2006]

The word "battling" is active. Following the Way of Buddhadhamma is the process of eliminating such activity, which results in elimination of suffering.

Yet the problem, as I've pointed out, is that Buddhism merely eliminates a certain magnification of suffering, not the core of suffering. Whether someone is in a deep meditation or simply reading the morning paper, they ought to know this. Suffering is a foreign entity which is a tragedy contrary to our nature. To accept it as normal is to do violence to ourselves and our common sense.

The fact that the body naturally recoils at pain is indicative of our existence. A body that does not do so is not healthy; it is diseased and apathetic. Yet there is inevitably a certain short-term comfort gained by consenting to suffering and thus denying its contrariety to the will. But in the end such indifference fails for the same basic reason Masochism fails.

 

[Received]

Yet the problem, as I've pointed out, is that Buddhism merely eliminates a certain magnification of suffering, not the core of suffering. Whether someone is in a deep meditation or simply reading the morning paper, they ought to know this. Suffering is a foreign entity which is a tragedy contrary to our nature. To accept it as normal is to do violence to ourselves and our common sense.

The fact that the body naturally recoils at pain is indicative of our existence. A body that does not do so is not healthy; it is diseased and apathetic. Yet there is inevitably a certain short-term comfort gained by consenting to suffering and thus denying its contrariety to the will. But in the end such indifference fails for the same basic reason Masochism fails.

Suffering is desire (craving) applied to pain, so I think these two terms are qualitatively different. Accepting suffering just means you accept it as something that's there, like a rock on the ground, not that you will it in a principled way. Maybe just the mindful acceptance of suffering in this way doesn't get to the root of annihilating it (you can imagine a surgeon telling his patient to just accept the pain through mindfulness rather than cutting out the tumor that causes this pain), but the habit of mindfully accepting something has plenty of psychological research for lowering pain, among other things. It's unimaginably useful with big psychological problems, like depression and anxiety. All this is accomplished through the essential principle of mindful acceptance rather than resistance or craving thrust upon pain, which creates suffering.

That said, I think it goes too far if it holds that we should just mindfully accept whatever comes our way rather than change it. Why can't we do both? But I don't think any real Buddhist would disagree with this idea.

 

[ananda]

Yet the problem, as I've pointed out, is that Buddhism merely eliminates a certain magnification of suffering, not the core of suffering. Whether someone is in a deep meditation or simply reading the morning paper, they ought to know this. Suffering is a foreign entity which is a tragedy contrary to our nature. To accept it as normal is to do violence to ourselves and our common sense.

The fact that the body naturally recoils at pain is indicative of our existence. A body that does not do so is not healthy; it is diseased and apathetic. Yet there is inevitably a certain short-term comfort gained by consenting to suffering and thus denying its contrariety to the will. But in the end such indifference fails for the same basic reason Masochism fails.

Suffering is desire (craving) applied to pain, so I think these two terms are qualitatively different. Accepting suffering just means you accept it as something that's there, like a rock on the ground, not that you will it in a principled way. Maybe just the mindful acceptance of suffering in this way doesn't get to the root of annihilating it (you can imagine a surgeon telling his patient to just accept the pain through mindfulness rather than cutting out the tumor that causes this pain), but the habit of mindfully accepting something has plenty of psychological research for lowering pain, among other things. It's unimaginably useful with big psychological problems, like depression and anxiety. All this is accomplished through the essential principle of mindful acceptance rather than resistance or craving thrust upon pain, which creates suffering.

That said, I think it goes too far if it holds that we should just mindfully accept whatever comes our way rather than change it. Why can't we do both? But I don't think any real Buddhist would disagree with this idea.

If pain can be morally and ethically alleviated or avoided, then it should be done; this is not foreign to the tenets of Buddhism. It also teaches the brain/mind to passively "accept" and let go of suffering ... if pain cannot be alleviated.

 

[timewerx]

The Buddha taught that the basic undercurrent in life which motivates most individual's behavior is suffering. Others tend to disagree, pointing to the fact that there are joys in life.

I agree that there are temporary joys in life. However, I would say that we constantly seek out those joys, pleasure, and other activities, in order to achieve a measure of happiness in order to temporary eliminate the suffering we feel in our daily lives. The fact that we do not seek out suffering to eliminate happiness proves to me that suffering is truly the underlying factor which motivates our decisions in life.

Most people in the world are living in 3rd world conditions so I guess Buddha is right.

It's the pyramidal structure of our political and economic systems why suffering is the basic condition of our world.

 

[zippy2006]

If pain can be morally and ethically alleviated or avoided, then it should be done; this is not foreign to the tenets of Buddhism. It also teaches the brain/mind to passively "accept" and let go of suffering ... if pain cannot be alleviated.

But that's false, and it rests on a kind of hedonism.

Suppose someone's entire family is murdered. The Buddhist would seek to avoid the suffering through a kind of indifference. But that is inhuman. The suffering is necessary and healthy. The problem is that Buddhism wishes to avoid suffering unilaterally without considering the causes of suffering.

 

[ananda]

But that's false, and it rests on a kind of hedonism.

What's false?

Suppose someone's entire family is murdered. The Buddhist would seek to avoid the suffering through a kind of indifference. But that is inhuman. The suffering is necessary and healthy. The problem is that Buddhism wishes to avoid suffering unilaterally without considering the causes of suffering.

Why is that suffering necessary and healthy? Can the Buddhist do anything to reverse the situation or the pain after his family is murdered? The pain is there, and can be learned from, but the suffering is optional.

 

[zippy2006]

Why is that suffering necessary and healthy?

Because it is the proper human response to evil. If such a thing did not cause a person suffering, then there would be something wrong with the person. This is what Buddhism aims at.

 

[ananda]

Because it is the proper human response to evil. If such a thing did not cause a person suffering, then there would be something wrong with the person. This is what Buddhism aims at.

What makes "[personal] suffering the proper human response to [external] evil"? Just because someone else performed evil means I must experience suffering, or something is wrong with me?

 

[zippy2006]

What makes "[personal] suffering the proper human response to [external] evil"? Just because someone else performed evil means I must experience suffering, or something is wrong with me?

When someone murders your entire family, then you should experience suffering, yes.

We experience suffering when we lose what we love, and there are things that ought to be loved, such as children, parents, spouse, etc. The Buddhist workaround is to love nothing (and therefore hate nothing). But humans were meant to love, and therefore they were meant to be susceptible to suffering. In order to avoid suffering the Buddhist must avoid love. This is a truncated human existence.

God is perhaps furthest from Buddhism. He came, accepted suffering, death, and the sins of the world, all out of love. Love caused him to willingly undergo suffering that he could have avoided. It was precisely that deep love--love that does not shy away from suffering--that saved the world. The Christian fears suffering but does not avoid it.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Ananda,

Suffering, pain, and illness are not more fundamental than joy, pleasure, or health. There is a fundamental question that hasn't really been examined here is and that is, what is suffering? what is pain? What is illness?

If you dig into this question you will find at the bottom that suffering, pain, and illness are all states of loss. The experience of loss, by definition, cannot be prior to, or more fundamental than that which is lost.

Suffering is essentially the loss of joy or pleasure. In a certain sense Buddha was correct that suffering is caused by desire because we all desire joy and pleasure. The suffering that we experience is when that desire is unfulfilled. All suffering, in this sense, is the result of unfulfilled desire, which is an experience of loss.

Pain and Illness are just two specific examples of this principle. Illness is the loss of health, pain is the loss of pleasure. Health is a pleasurable state. We often don't realize this because it is, in fact, our natural, fundamental state. We only realize how pleasurable health really is when we lose it and experience illness.

The east and the west have offered two different, indeed almost opposite, paths to dealing with this problem of suffering. They both recognize that suffering is the result of unfulfilled desire for pleasure or enjoyment. The only way, thus, to remove suffering, is to create a situation in which the level of desire matches the level of fulfillment/enjoyment. The east attempts answers this problem by teaching denial of desire. This balances the equation, as it were, by lowering desire. The west, on the other hand, attempts to answer the problem by raising the level of pleasure and enjoyment. It tries to meet all desires, thus balancing the equation by raising fulfillment of desire.

Christianity offers a fundamentally different path than either east or west. Christianity teaches first that there is a right order to desires and we must keep them in that order. This provides a surface similarity to Buddhism. However, the core of Christianity is the teaching that, provided our desires are rightly ordered, we should embrace suffering for the sake of love (which is desire).

Suffering in itself is not viewed as good. It was not our original state, nor was it what we were intended for. However, it was through the fear of suffering and death that our race became subject to evil. Thus embracing suffering and even death for the sake of love is the remedy. Jesus is the highest and perfect example of this. It is often misunderstood that Christianity teaches that we are saved by the punishment Jesus took. That by taking our punishment, he satisfied God's wrath and justice, God's need to punish someone.

On the contrary, we are saved not by the amount that Jesus suffered, or was punished, but rather by the amount that he loved. His willingness to suffer and die for us was the ultimate expression of his love. It is this love which reconciles us to God.

Suffering, pain, and illness can also be accurately described as states of brokenness. They are experiences of loss, but they are also the result of, and our experience of, the brokenness of the world and more importantly our own selves. This can easily seem to be our fundamental state because we ourselves are broken since the fall, and the world itself is broken since the fall. In terms of experience, none of us have ever experienced what it's really like to not be broken. Or what it is like to not live in a broken world.

But as CS Lewis pointed out, this very fact strongly suggests that this is not our fundamental, natural state. Because if it was, we would not know it, and we would not know it's wrongness. The very fact that we know suffering to be wrong, suggests that it is not our natural state.

 

[ananda]

When someone murders your entire family, then you should experience suffering, yes.

You don't provide an answer to "why?" except that it's the "proper response". Why should I experience suffering? What inherently makes it the "proper response"?

We experience suffering when we lose what we love, and there are things that ought to be loved, such as children, parents, spouse, etc. The Buddhist workaround is to love nothing (and therefore hate nothing). But humans were meant to love, and therefore they were meant to be susceptible to suffering. In order to avoid suffering the Buddhist must avoid love. This is a truncated human existence.

God is perhaps furthest from Buddhism. He came, accepted suffering, death, and the sins of the world, all out of love. Love caused him to willingly undergo suffering that he could have avoided. It was precisely that deep love--love that does not shy away from suffering--that saved the world. The Christian fears suffering but does not avoid it.

Buddhism esteems a different ideal than the Christian concept of love. We elevate compassion and loving-kindness over love, in the sense that the qualities of compassion and loving-kindness does not require reciprocation or attachment, but are instead selfless.

The Christian concept of "love", however, requires reciprocation and attachment, and causes suffering. The Christian god requires his subjects to love him back (attachment), and vice versa.

 

[ananda]

Ananda,

Suffering, pain, and illness are not more fundamental than joy, pleasure, or health. There is a fundamental question that hasn't really been examined here is and that is, what is suffering? what is pain? What is illness?

If you dig into this question you will find at the bottom that suffering, pain, and illness are all states of loss. The experience of loss, by definition, cannot be prior to, or more fundamental than that which is lost.

Suffering is essentially the loss of joy or pleasure. In a certain sense Buddha was correct that suffering is caused by desire because we all desire joy and pleasure. The suffering that we experience is when that desire is unfulfilled. All suffering, in this sense, is the result of unfulfilled desire, which is an experience of loss.

Pain and Illness are just two specific examples of this principle. Illness is the loss of health, pain is the loss of pleasure. Health is a pleasurable state. We often don't realize this because it is, in fact, our natural, fundamental state. We only realize how pleasurable health really is when we lose it and experience illness.

I consider suffering to not only be the loss of what is desirable or pleasurable (greed), but also resistance against what is not desireable or pleasurable (hatred), or acting or thinking in non-wise manners (delusion). Suffering occurs because of attachment to unfulfilled desires, repulsion against what is hated, or delusion. Yes, a measure of relief from suffering occurs when one fulfills unfulfilled desires, eliminates what is hated, or by dispelling ignorance and delusion. They are however only temporary solutions, as new desires, etc. are always sprouting. Feeding and fulfilling desire produces more desires. This is the nature of samsara, as described in Buddhism, and is evidenced by the numerous individuals suffering through various mental illnesses. Giving in to their anxious or depressive compulsions causes their mental illness to grow. (Much of modern psychology therapies are successfully based on Buddhist concepts of detachment and release)

So, IMO it is more rational to work on a more fundamental, permanent level - to work against mental attachments to unfulfilled desire, repulsion, or ignorance.

The east and the west have offered two different, indeed almost opposite, paths to dealing with this problem of suffering. They both recognize that suffering is the result of unfulfilled desire for pleasure or enjoyment. The only way, thus, to remove suffering, is to create a situation in which the level of desire matches the level of fulfillment/enjoyment. The east attempts answers this problem by teaching denial of desire. This balances the equation, as it were, by lowering desire. The west, on the other hand, attempts to answer the problem by raising the level of pleasure and enjoyment. It tries to meet all desires, thus balancing the equation by raising fulfillment of desire.

Christianity offers a fundamentally different path than either east or west. Christianity teaches first that there is a right order to desires and we must keep them in that order. This provides a surface similarity to Buddhism. However, the core of Christianity is the teaching that, provided our desires are rightly ordered, we should embrace suffering for the sake of love (which is desire).

What do you mean by "rightly ordering desires"?

Suffering in itself is not viewed as good. It was not our original state, nor was it what we were intended for. However, it was through the fear of suffering and death that our race became subject to evil. Thus embracing suffering and even death for the sake of love is the remedy. Jesus is the highest and perfect example of this. It is often misunderstood that Christianity teaches that we are saved by the punishment Jesus took. That by taking our punishment, he satisfied God's wrath and justice, God's need to punish someone.

On the contrary, we are saved not by the amount that Jesus suffered, or was punished, but rather by the amount that he loved. His willingness to suffer and die for us was the ultimate expression of his love. It is this love which reconciles us to God.

Suffering, pain, and illness can also be accurately described as states of brokenness. They are experiences of loss, but they are also the result of, and our experience of, the brokenness of the world and more importantly our own selves. This can easily seem to be our fundamental state because we ourselves are broken since the fall, and the world itself is broken since the fall. In terms of experience, none of us have ever experienced what it's really like to not be broken. Or what it is like to not live in a broken world.

But as CS Lewis pointed out, this very fact strongly suggests that this is not our fundamental, natural state. Because if it was, we would not know it, and we would not know it's wrongness. The very fact that we know suffering to be wrong, suggests that it is not our natural state.

As I pointed out in my last post, Christian love involves attachments, and thus, suffering in the endless round of samsara.

Yes, suffering is not our natural state, but we disagree on what is the best solution for suffering. Your solution (embracing suffering/rightly ordering desires) is dependant on an alleged future reconcilation of suffering by your deity - a belief based on blind faith. The Buddhist solution on the other hand produces visible, measurable results in the here-and-now, and also promises relief from future suffering.

 

[zippy2006]

You don't provide an answer to "why?" except that it's the "proper response". Why should I experience suffering? What inherently makes it the "proper response"?

I explained it in terms of love, but if you do not understand reality and humanity enough to understand that one ought to suffer when their family is murdered, then there is little I can do for you.

Buddhism esteems a different ideal than the Christian concept of love. We elevate compassion and loving-kindness over love, in the sense that the qualities of compassion and loving-kindness does not require reciprocation or attachment, but are instead selfless.

There is a secondary Buddhistic tradition called the Mahayana school, but it is a deviation from traditional Buddhism and does not cohere with the original doctrines.

The Christian concept of "love", however, requires reciprocation and attachment, and causes suffering. The Christian god requires his subjects to love him back (attachment), and vice versa.

"Compassion" without love is a phantom. Indeed the word literally means "to suffer with."