Suffering

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that was my premise, that pain and suffering is more fundamental than happiness and pleasure.

I am not sure youre probably talking existentially rather than geneologically in terms of brain evolution. But even existentially, why ought ain be regarded as primal? Ok Buddha talked of dukkha. And in a sense we have pains, transitoriness and being which are (or can be) hard to deal with. I suppose. For me though... life's a mix.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Dukkha. Just been readiongh about it lasyt night. Nirvana on the other hand... enlightenment?

 

[Mediaeval]

So, according to your faith, suffering is meant to prod us to seek out the resolution of suffering through obedience?

It is true that suffering may prod us toward obedience—that would certainly be a good way to improve the suffering (to use ‘improve’ in a archaic sense). But the path of obedience itself is often a path of actively chosen suffering, as our Lord showed. We all live by sacrifice.

 

[ananda]

You must believe that the origin and all the reasons of suffering is from human itself. So if you could make yourself not existing, the all the sufferings would also be ceased.
Is there any possibility that sufferings are ADDED to human? I think Buddhism might be the only major religion which excludes this possibility.

I see the truth in the statement that suffering comes from attachment to things which change, which essentially includes all of the universe. We resist change (the nature of reality), or we are attached to things which we don't have and wish to possess (greed). So, in that sense, I see nothing externally added to humans. What else do you see added?

 

[ananda]

I don't know if you can really aim to avoid suffering. You can aim to avoid pain, but suffering (as far as I can tell from my limited understanding of Buddhism) is created from a desire to escape pain. So to say that we aim to avoid suffering means we aim to avoid avoidance of pain, which is a bit gobbledygookish. It's more sensical to speak of pain as having an influence on our motivation, and not immediate pain that's already present (which would be suffering), but pain as a possibility -- pain in the future.

But we need painful experiences to grow, and there are plenty of times where we intentionally take on pain as part of the happiness project we have at any moment. So it gets complicated.

According to Buddhism, suffering comes from attachment to pain. Pain is externally sourced, like a literal arrow shot into a person's body. Suffering is internal - it is a mental attachment to the pain of the physical arrow which becomes a "second arrow" in the person's mind.

Another example: People often feel much better decluttering their homes. The old couch may have physically been tossed, but there is also the mental couch occupying space in the mind which becomes de-attached, and it is this which usually gives the true relief.

So, yes, pain and suffering often prods the "lesser evolved" beings to change and grow; without such pain they are often content to stay and remain as they are. For the enlightened who understands this process on the higher level, such prodding is no longer necessary for growth.

 

[ananda]

The parts of the brain that control both are fairly old. However, if I recall correctly, pain is the older of the sensations. But, some people do see pain; some people get a thrill out of it. Personally, while I do not seek pain out, I would consider my experience of life to be lesser without it.

Pain is often unavoidable, but suffering is not.

IMO those who get a thrill out of pain are suffering from an addiction to epinpherine rushes.

 

[brinny]

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.

a profound question....

it could tie into why the God i believe in allows suffering...for myself, suffering has had a profound effect on me....

i dunno....

gotta munch on this a bit...

 

[ananda]

I wouldn't say that these are more fundamental. Is the darkness more "fundamental" than light?

Our conceptual understanding is that of perceiving contrast. Our existence demands that we see beginning and end, that we distinguish between various objects, that we see some contrast.

Suffering is just a necessary contrast from non-suffering. I know it may seem callous, but it's likewise a matter of perspective. I've played college sports, and it hurts. Pushing yourself beyond your "natural limits" can be painful, yet plenty of people do that and find some joy and satisfaction in that. Are they gluttons for suffering? I doubt it.

I know it's different from someone dying of cancer, or suffering the agony of hunger or torture, or even mental distress. That's where I think that Christian side of the equation (or religion in general) is not moving in the direction where it claims to believe.

If there were true Christian denominations in this world, I don't think they'd waste enormous amount of human resources and potential on singing praise songs and "studying the Bible". It's a relatively simple book for goodness snakes . How many times one has to read it in order to move on doing something productive in the scope of what it promotes?

IMO pain is not the same as suffering ... Pain can be used as a good tool for self-growth, I agree.

 

[ananda]

I am not sure youre probably talking existentially rather than geneologically in terms of brain evolution. But even existentially, why ought ain be regarded as primal? Ok Buddha talked of dukkha. And in a sense we have pains, transitoriness and being which are (or can be) hard to deal with. I suppose. For me though... life's a mix.

Dukkha. Just been readiongh about it lasyt night. Nirvana on the other hand... enlightenment?

Yes, dukkha is suffering (but not necessarily pain). Dukkha is more primal than happiness, because people seek escape from dukkha; we do not seek escape from happiness. Enlightenment is the path to Nibbana.

 

[ananda]

a profound question....

it could tie into why the God i believe in allows suffering...for myself, suffering has had a profound effect on me....

i dunno....

gotta munch on this a bit...

I'm sorry about your dukkha you've experienced. Unfortunately, I could not resolve my own questions regarding suffering with my former belief systems (different denominations within Christianity), which is why I turned to early Buddhism (after intensely studying most of the major religions over the past few years).

 

[brinny]

I'm sorry about your dukkha you've experienced. Unfortunately, I could not resolve my own questions regarding suffering with my former belief systems (different denominations within Christianity), which is why I turned to early Buddhism (after intensely studying most of the major religions over the past few years).

a thought-provoking thread....

Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

I see the truth in the statement that suffering comes from attachment to things which change, which essentially includes all of the universe. We resist change (the nature of reality), or we are attached to things which we don't have and wish to possess (greed). So, in that sense, I see nothing externally added to humans. What else do you see added?

Given a group of people who do not know how to deal with suffering. And give one generally unfavorable situation to the group: Some people in the group suffered MORE THAN others.
Why?

 

[ananda]

Given a group of people who do not know how to deal with suffering. And give one generally unfavorable situation to the group: Some people in the group suffered MORE THAN others.
Why?

They are more attached in some ways to the unfavorable situation than the others. The "unfavorable situation" may be the news that one of their members just died. Among the group might have been the dead member's child, or niece. They would likely suffer more than the unreleated others.

 

[juvenissun]

They are more attached in some ways to the unfavorable situation than the others. The "unfavorable situation" may be the news that one of their members just died. Among the group might have been the dead member's child, or niece. They would likely suffer more than the unreleated others.

You don't get the question.
For example, a group of people (who do not know how to deal with suffering) were put in jail. Some of them will suffer more than others.
Why?

 

[ananda]

You don't get the question.
For example, a group of people (who do not know how to deal with suffering) were put in jail. Some of them will suffer more than others.
Why?

I do get the question. In regards to your example, some suffer more than others because they are more attached. Some may be more attached to their life outside of jail. Others may be attached to certain foods they miss and don't have access to. Some may have little attachment to the outside world, being homeless, and actually welcome new attachments to a warm cell and regular food in jail, etc. It could be any infinite number of attachments, the degree of which determines individual levels of suffering.

 

[juvenissun]

I do get the question. In regards to your example, some suffer more than others because they are more attached. Some may be more attached to their life outside of jail. Others may be attached to certain foods they miss and don't have access to. Some may have little attachment to the outside world, being homeless, and actually welcome new attachments to a warm cell and regular food in jail, etc. It could be any infinite number of attachments, the degree of which determines individual levels of suffering.

In this case, could we say that suffering is added, or arrived to these people, and they responded in different way?

 

[ananda]

In this case, could we say that suffering is added, or arrived to these people, and they responded in different way?

I would say that they were given a pain, and due to differences in levels of personal attachment to that pain, they experienced different types of suffering (or even a lessening of suffering).

 

[zippy2006]

Arguments:

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.

Conclusion:

I think that was my premise, that pain and suffering is more fundamental than happiness and pleasure.

Let's take both of your arguments in turn. Argument 1:

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.

Are there not also temporary sorrows in life? Is there some reason that one could not say that we seek out joys and pleasures in order to correct the temporary sorrows that we are experiencing? That is to say, this argument is not sufficient for your conclusion.

Argument 2:

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.

This seems to be your underlying reasoning:

1. If x is sought to eliminate y, then y is primary.
2. Pleasure is sought to eliminate suffering.
3. Therefore suffering is primary.

That is to say, suffering is the underlying reality, the status quo, the starting point and the point of equilibrium.

But it seems that premise (1) is simplistic and faulty. Consider the reduction to absurdity:

1. If x is sought to eliminate y, then y is primary.
2. Health is sought to eliminate illness.
3. Therefore illness is primary.

Yet everyone knows that illness is not primary. So I don't think your arguments work.

Here is a quick argument in favor of the idea that good precedes evil (Augustine was very influential in developing this idea against the Manichaens). That which is sought for its own sake is more primary than that which is sought for the sake of something else. Good (which includes joy, delight, pleasure, etc.) is sought for its own sake; it is desired in itself. Avoidance of evil is sought not for its own sake, but for the sake of the good. We do not avoid evil because the act of avoiding evil is worthwhile in itself, but rather because evil is the absence or privation of a good and we desire the good that the evil is impeding.

We hate illness because we love health. We hate suffering because we love peace and wellness. We hate darkness because we love the light. Health, peace, and light are primary; they are sought in themselves. Illness, suffering, and darkness are secondary, and only exist as the privation of some due good, some lack which ought to be filled. A lack or incomplete reality always presupposes a fullness or complete reality. Suffering is just some absence of what ought to be there and was there before. We only avoid suffering because we first desire its opposite. If we did not first know peace then we would have no reason to avoid suffering.

 

[zippy2006]

Why should it be battled and embraced? I'm not sure why suffering should be battled and embraced; IMO it only causes more suffering.

I have found, in my personal practice, that through the practice of the eightfold path and by not being attached to suffering, my peace and happiness increases, and continues to persist the longer I practice. I need no external guarantee that it works, since I have experienced it directly for myself.

This is the contradiction of Buddhism: it contradicts its first principle:

1. Suffering should neither be avoided or embraced.
2. Suffering can be avoided through the noble eightfold path.

That may sound simplistic, but I think it is perfectly true. The "peace and happiness" that Buddhism has brought you are precisely the things that combat the suffering you experienced prior to beginning your Buddhistic practices, and they are the reason that you became and remain a Buddhist. You became a Buddhist because you sought to avoid suffering, and you remain a Buddhist because Buddhism has successfully mitigated your suffering to some extent.

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).

Buddhism is just a more robust way to avoid suffering. Grasping and aversion often magnify suffering, so Buddhism does away with them and manages to avoid that magnification of suffering, thus alleviating suffering to precisely the degree that the Buddha thought possible. The Buddhist is the fellow who has managed to find some measure of peace, some measure of alleviation. 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.

 

[ananda]

Yet everyone knows that illness is not primary. So I don't think your arguments work.

Illness and death is more fundamental than health, in this world. Only with constant work, through food, exercise, etc. is a modicum of health maintained - for a period of time. Without the constant effort, illness and death prevails.

That which is sought for its own sake is more primary than that which is sought for the sake of something else. Good (which includes joy, delight, pleasure, etc.) is sought for its own sake; it is desired in itself.

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).