Suffering - Causes, Effects and Solutions

_db

I don't think it's any mystery that pessimism is a controversial, touchy, and yet ripe topic to discuss here on PF. We've also had quite a lot of conflict related to it lately as well. A lot of the conflict seemed, at least to me, to be from a mutual misunderstanding of how each person viewed suffering and the causes, effects, and solutions of/to it. So I have decided to make a thread dedicated to this very topic.

What follows is my personal take on this:

At the root of pessimism lies the phenomenon of suffering. It is why a pessimist is a pessimist. Everyone suffers.

Suffering can be defined as the feeling of discomfort. If a sentient being experiences discomfort, then they experience a desire to cease this experience. Suffering can be juxtaposed against pleasure, but neither exist as a balance to the other; for example, you can eat a piece of cake and prick your finger at the same time.

The cause of suffering:

There are several sources of suffering.

The first source of suffering is Taṇhā, which in Pali translates as "thirst". Other words to describe Taṇhā are "dissatisfaction", "craving", or "desire". The feeling you get when you see a warm doughnut out of the oven is an example of Taṇhā.

There are three types of Taṇhā:

1.) Kama Taṇhā, (sense craving), or the desire for sensual pleasures, such as a warm doughnut, sex, a new cellphone, a vacation home, etc.

2.) Bhava Taṇhā (craving to be), or the desire to be something one is not; i.e. to have an concrete soul (self), to have a past and a future, to be dominating over others, etc.

and

3.) Vibhava Taṇhā (craving not to be), or the desire for extermination, destruction [being the wish to be separated from pain], or any kind of existence that does not include certain aspects of the current existence (I wish I didn't have so much anxiety!)

Taṇhā is perpetuated by ignorance, attachment, and aversion, in respect to each of the three types of Taṇhā. This means that this kind of suffering is perpetuated by the person, not the environment. Although the environment may begin the initial spark of suffering, the individual themselves ends up becoming a slave to Taṇhā if they allow themselves to.

Now, on to the second kind of suffering, environmentally-caused suffering. This is suffering that is not caused by the person themselves, but rather by the world around them. A falling tree branch may break a person's leg and cause them to suffer; this was not their fault and was merely the result of the chain of causality.

This type of suffering is typically far more sharp than the anxiety-like suffering of the previous type. It is caused by firing nociceptors transmitting to our brains. Although this helped us survive quite well in the past, it also means that we have the problem of being able to suffer tremendous amounts of pain without doing anything about it (we can't just turn off nociceptors). This type of pain is what leads me to my antinatalistic stance, one that views birth as an unnecessary action.

Theoretically, we could make AIs or even humans that don't feel pain and are able to cope with Taṇhā. I would be willing to discuss this further.

Ultimately, my view on life is that it is mostly an itch and a bit underwhelming, although I do admit this seems to change sometimes depending on the day of the week. The Buddhist philosophy on Taṇhā that I talked about above does nothing more, in my view, than mitigate our eventual suffering. It cannot lead to nirvana, for nirvana does not exist outside of a conceptual goal. Happiness is the state of eudaimonia and relief from any noticeable aches.

I have said my thoughts on the nature of suffering. I have a few things to say about the pessimist's treatment of suffering as well, but I hope this won't become the center of the topic.

The recognition of suffering as a fact of life is a bold but true statement by the pessimist. However, it often gets blown out of proportion a bit. Romanticized, so to speak. Suffering becomes the structure of reality, instead of a part of reality.

It is interesting, though, how a person who has shit to do usually doesn't have time to complain too much. Schopenhauer, one of the greatest pessimistic philosophers, wouldn't have been able to live his extravagant, aristocratic life without the laborious work of the common man. As I said above, Taṇhā is not out of our control, and Schopenhauer spends most of his time ranting about this type of suffering. Whereas the common man breaking his back in a coal mine actually has something to complain about because, well, his back fucking aches!

To have a poor temper as Schopenhauer apparently did is to fail to see the conflict between our expectations and reality. Being a pessimist does not mean one has to be depressed. The facts of life do not have to cause angst. The only reason they would do so is because one has not let go of past expectations or values.

I've said my bit. I want to hear yours.

schopenhauer1

a person who has shit to do usually doesn't have time to complain too much. — darthbarracuda

Using examples of the "working class", "third world", and "hunter-gatherers", as some sort of ideal model of the un-existential man, simply "living his life" is inaccurate and a cliche of itself. In fact, in its attempt to undercut the "existential" thinker, it becomes its own cliche.

schopenhauer1

Also, why even care about this post if you don't like pessimism? Do you want to be the resident anti-pessimist? If pessimism is absurd and insignificant as a philosophical model, why not just ignore it? I would say there are only three people that your railing against pessimism would matter to on this forum.

Pneumenon

↪schopenhauer1

You are being silly. If you don't like a philosophical position, then it's acceptable to argue against it.

schopenhauer1

You are being silly. If you don't like a philosophical position, then it's acceptable to argue against it. — Pneumenon

Just curious if this is trolling for a flame war. Clearly there are only about three or so people on here that care about this. I am willing to take the bait cause I enjoy it, but again, it's just odd to me the fervent need to be anti-pessimism. It makes sense for things like realism vs. idealism, because those are by and large common arguments that a majority of those in the philosophical community debate. Also, to be pro-pessimist makes sense to me in terms of being a bit of the gadfly to the majority who usually don't consider it. However, to be the gadfly to the gadfly seems to me to be in trolling territory as it is specifically seeking out only one or two people who this really pertains to.

_db

Using examples of the "working class", "third world", and "hunter-gatherers", as some sort of ideal model of the un-existential man, simply "living his life" is inaccurate and a cliche of itself. In fact, in its attempt to undercut the "existential" thinker, it becomes its own cliche. — schopenhauer1

I don't think so, actually. And I wasn't limiting it to the "working class" "third world" "hunter gatherers"; anyone who has anything to do, whether that be washing the dishes or running a marathon, is using more energy doing that activity than they are thinking about existential problems.

Certainly, these problems still exist, I'm not denying that. And they are worth discussing. But they do not pose the same threat of harm as, say, a stab wound or a car crash.

Also, why even care about this post if you don't like pessimism? Do you want to be the resident anti-pessimist? If pessimism is absurd and insignificant as a philosophical model, why not just ignore it? I would say there are only three people that your railing against pessimism would matter to on this forum. — schopenhauer1

Curiously, when Thorongil posted his argument against the existence of the Christian god, you didn't seem to get all up in arms.

Just curious if this is trolling for a flame war. — schopenhauer1

No, this is not trolling nor a flame war. Why do you keep asking that?

it's just odd to me the fervent need to be anti-pessimism. — schopenhauer1

No, rather, it's just the fervent need to discuss philosophical topics. May I recall to you that you also made some threads regarding pessimism.

Also, to be pro-pessimist makes sense to me in terms of being a bit of the gadfly to the majority who usually don't consider it. However, to be the gadfly to the gadfly seems to me to be in trolling territory as it is specifically seeking out only one or two people who this really pertains to. — schopenhauer1

This is the some real martyrdom going on right here. (oh, you're the outcast!, the gadfly!) If I have a problem with pessimism (which I don't inherently, I have a problem with the attitudes of pessimists), then I post a thread about it. If I have a problem with realism, than I post a thread about realism. There's no discrimination here between what is okay to discuss and what is not.

schopenhauer1

↪darthbarracuda

But you didn't answer the main question. Why post it if it only pertains to three people? I'm one of them so yeah I do feel this is more directly aimed at me more than say a poster who only posts on wit metaphysics and politics or what not. It's not so martyrish to suspect this based on the evidence of there being very few pessimists, albeit ones that post a lot on pessimism.

Now as for the activities that consume time, well yeah, peolple can concentrate on the little details. I think of the Buddhist monks making their sand mandelas and then ruining the creation after all the hard work as a practice in impermanence and non attachment. Anyways, as you yourself mentioned, the problem doesn't go away but rather presents itself at some points- usually loneliness, boredom, angst, etc. As pointed out, we have so much self awareness we can have these thoughts at all as a species. As I mentioned in another thread, the response to the situation by those with a groundless metaphysics (the absurd camp) is to delve more deeply into details and activities so as to not focus on the bigger picture. I would argue several things:
1) some temperaments are simply prone not to focus on the bigger picture (most actually) and some are. This isn't attitude mind you but constitution.
2) the struggles of life are present no matter what. It just becomes acute, more refined, and nuanced as the person focused their attention on this or that.
3) eventually almost everyone will confront existential issues at some point.
4) the cat is already out of the bag. The justification for doing anything becomes more troublesome as one is faced with the prospect of the absurdity of survival and desires and goals
5) the environmental pain (which I refer to as contingent pain) will always be there.

_db

But you didn't answer the main question. Why post it if it only pertains to three people? I'm one of them so yeah I do feel this is more directly aimed at me more than say a poster who only posts on wit metaphysics and politics or what not. It's not so martyrish to suspect this based on the evidence of there being very few pessimists, albeit ones that post a lot on pessimism. — schopenhauer1

I posted this question because I wanted to discuss it. Even if only one person participated I would have posted it.

As it stands, though, more than three people have been participating in the pessimism-related threads.

1) some temperaments are simply prone not to focus on the bigger picture (most actually) and some are. This isn't attitude mind you but constitution. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. I think most of us here on PF would fall into the camp of focusing on the little details.

2) the struggles of life are present no matter what. It just becomes acute, more refined, and nuanced as the person focused their attention on this or that. — schopenhauer1

Sure.

3) eventually almost everyone will confront existential issues at some point. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

4) the cat is already out of the bag. The justification for doing anything becomes more troublesome as one is faced with the prospect of the absurdity of survival and desires and goals — schopenhauer1

What are you saying here? I don't understand.

5) the environmental pain (which I refer to as contingent pain) will always be there. — schopenhauer1

...in various amounts of intensity. It's not as if we are going through hellfire on a daily basis. The potential for hellfire is there, though. But so is the potential for really great experiences.

Thorongil

The recognition of suffering as a fact of life is a bold but true statement by the pessimist. However, it often gets blown out of proportion a bit. Romanticized, so to speak. Suffering becomes the structure of reality, instead of a part of reality. — darthbarracuda

What would it mean to say that suffering is the structure of reality? I'm afraid that doesn't make any conceptual sense to me. It is viewed by most pessimists as an intrinsic feature of reality, a necessary result due to the nature of reality, which might then be given as a shorthand such as the first noble truth in Buddhism.

Schopenhauer, one of the greatest pessimistic philosophers, wouldn't have been able to live his extravagant, aristocratic life without the laborious work of the common man. — darthbarracuda

This is ad hominem attack, though I very much doubt Schopenhauer would disagree with you on this point. In fact, I think he makes it himself when speaking of civilization and genius.

The facts of life do not have to cause angst. The only reason they would do so is because one has not let go of past expectations or values. — darthbarracuda

One could say that this is to romanticize reality far more than the pessimist does. Life does not have to cause angst? Find me a sentient organism where this is the case.

my view on life is that it is mostly an itch and a bit underwhelming, although I do admit this seems to change sometimes depending on the day of the week. — darthbarracuda

A bourgeois sentiment, this. Life will catch up to you, rest assured.

_db

What would it mean to say that suffering is the structure of reality? — Thorongil

Meaning, for example, Schopenhauer's "Will"; the personification of striving, suffering, boredom, etc. These are qualities of existence. I might even say that they constitute a rather "natural" state of man. But suffering itself is not an intrinsic part of the universe. The cosmos isn't strung together by suffering.

This is ad hominem attack, though I very much doubt Schopenhauer would disagree with you on this point. In fact, I think he makes it himself when speaking of civilization and genius. — Thorongil

It was not meant to be an ad hominem. It was meant to show that Schopenhauer wouldn't be able to write his philosophy without having all that extra time and money. If you are struggling to survive, you don't have time to think about boredom or angst. These are problems that arise due to decadence.

One could say that this is to romanticize reality far more than the pessimist does. Life does not have to cause angst? Find me a sentient organism where this is the case. — Thorongil

My dog. LOL.

But really, there is no correlation between the facts of life and the attitude of the individual. Camus' Absurd Man is an example of this; i.e. just because there is no meaning does not mean everything is hopeless.

When I look at myself in the mirror, I realize that I am not a "self". I am an organism but I never was an never will have a concrete ego. For many people this will cause great angst, and in the past this has caused me great angst. Thomas Ligotti, pessimist/nihilist writer, thinks this way, when he writes that the lack of having a self is the worst thing that could happen to us. The only reason it causes him pain, though, would be because he desires having a self.

A bourgeois sentiment, this. Life will catch up to you, rest assured. — Thorongil

Aye, but until then, viva la vida.

Thorongil

Meaning, for example, Schopenhauer's "Will"; the personification of striving, suffering, boredom, etc. — darthbarracuda

That doesn't amount to saying suffering is the structure of reality. Suffering is a result of the will.

But suffering itself is not an intrinsic part of the universe. The cosmos isn't strung together by suffering. — darthbarracuda

The universe, in terms of stars, gas clouds, gravitation, etc exhibits the lower grades of the will's objectification. The higher the objectification of the will, the more the will suffers. Hence, human beings suffer the most, whereas a rock suffers very little if at all. So Schopenhauer would agree with you that suffering is not a distinct feature of much of the universe, at least in terms of its degree, but it is still an intrinsic part of reality, since all reality is merely the manifestation of the will.

It was meant to show that Schopenhauer wouldn't be able to write his philosophy without having all that extra time and money. If you are struggling to survive, you don't have time to think about boredom or angst. These are problems that arise due to decadence. — darthbarracuda

No, not necessarily. I think it's quite clear that boredom and angst are present in all sentient organisms. Perhaps you want to argue in terms of the degree they are present, but to reject their presence outside of those living in affluence is absurd.

My dog. LOL. — darthbarracuda

I would legitimately love to meet this dog who never feels boredom or anxiety. It would be a rare specimen for scientific study!

Aye, but until then, viva la vida. — darthbarracuda

Why?

I realize that I am not a "self". I am an organism but I never was an never will have a concrete ego. For many people this will cause great angst, and in the past this has caused me great angst. — darthbarracuda

I assume you're speaking of the illusoriness of the empirical ego, in which case, I fail to see how realizing this could cause angst. Are you and Ligotti disappointed there's no such thing as an immortal soul? If so, that is nothing more than petulance and egoism, not angst. Hence, you affirm and expand your ego by realizing that it doesn't exist, which is most ironic.

_db

So Schopenhauer would agree with you that suffering is not a distinct feature of much of the universe, at least in terms of degree, but it is still an intrinsic part of reality, since all reality is merely the manifestation of the will. — Thorongil

I don't see the value of hypothesizing the existence of a metaphysical Will. Is it not enough to just say that sentient organism on planet Earth have the neural capacity to suffer?

No, not necessarily. I think it's quite clear that boredom and angst are present in all sentient organisms. Perhaps you want to argue in terms of the degree they are present, but to reject their presence outside of those living in affluence is absurd. — Thorongil

Which is why I said that I don't deny that they are problems. Existential problems do exist, I'm not denying that. The magnitude of the problems is what changes depending on the circumstances a person is in. Circumstances, that, for the most part, can be changed by the person themselves.

I would legitimately love to meet this dog who never feels boredom or anxiety. It would be a rare specimen for scientific study! — Thorongil

It was meant as a joke. My dog is abnormally happy though.

Why? — Thorongil

Why not?

I assume you're speaking of the illusoriness of the empirical ego, in which case, I fail to see how realizing this could cause angst. Are you and Ligotti disappointed there's no such thing as an immortal soul? If so, that is nothing more than petulance and egoism, not angst. Hence, you affirm and expand your ego by realizing that it doesn't exist, which is most ironic. — Thorongil

This was merely an example. I don't feel angst about the lack of an ego anymore. But this is not the only existential realization.

Thorongil

I don't see the value of hypothesizing the existence of a metaphysical Will. — darthbarracuda

I don't care about the value of it either. I care about whether it's true or not.

It was meant as a joke. — darthbarracuda

I know. I had an exclamation mark.

Why not? — darthbarracuda

Hey, man, you asserted the affirmative first.

_db

I don't care about the value of it either. I care about whether it's true or not. — Thorongil

Does Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will have any explanatory power over anything that isn't already covered by evolutionary biology? Occam's Razor seems to apply here.

Hey, man, you asserted the affirmative first. — Thorongil

Okay, fine, touche. You and I and everyone else here are alive and unless we have the guts to kill ourselves we might as well make the most of it and mitigate as much suffering as we can. Viva la vida.

The unexamined life is a literal waste of time, kicking the can down the road, hopscotching from one desire to the next while suffering the aches and pains and burdens of existence. To examine life, understand the dilemma of it, and actually know what kind of circus it actually is, and still consciously decide to keep living (i.e. living authetically; not-committing-suicide-every-day is a choice, not the null position), is rebellious and enough to fill a man's heart. Anybody can live...but it takes a certain kind of person to live absurdly, and that is worth some merit.

BC

I would make a sharper distinction between pain and "negative emotional states" (if they really are negative) and suffering. A person whose leg is broken will likely experience severe pain which will, even with excellent treatment, last a period of time and may have permanent consequences. That's not suffering. It's a real problem and it's not negligible.

Being depressed because one's leg is broken and one suddenly is cut off from one's daily exercise is a negative emotional state, for sure, but I wouldn't call that state suffering per se either. It's a real problem and it's not negligible, either. All of this will eventually get better; one will runs again. One will stop being depressed

I would prefer to define "suffering" as experiences which cut one off from one's sources of meaning, satisfaction, and happiness. Take a different kind of problem: arthritis, chronic serious edema, and severe obesity (this is a real case). These three chronic, not easily treated, and serious conditions cut Marie off from the activities from which she had previously derived meaning in life, satisfaction, and intellectual stimulation--work, theater performances, concerts and travel. She was essentially immobilized at home (and poor). There were no real cures for any of these conditions: She was not a good candidate for bariatric surgery or knee replacement. As her life became more restricted, her mental health gradually deteriorated. Habits that were not in themselves significant became problematic.

Marie "suffered" rather than merely experiencing pain, discomfort, and disappointment. She wasn't merely depressed, merely uncomfortable, merely inconvenienced. Her meaning in life had been lost, essentially, cutting her off from that which makes life worth living.

Suicide wasn't even an feasible option. Her drugs were monitored, and she had lone since become unable to climb out of a window (to fall) or to jump off a bridge (to drown). She was trapped and had little future. That's suffering.

Marie was diagnosed with cancer, and to some extent, welcomed the diagnosis. Cancer could be counted on to produce death -- maybe not as quickly as one would like, but it did offer a way out. So she declined treatment and the cancer killed her. Tragic? No. What was tragic was the way her life was drained of meaning, enjoyment, and interest.

Couldn't she have solved these problems? Well sure, if she was somebody else -- if she wasn't the person she was other forms of satisfaction, enjoyment, interest, and meaning could be found. But Marie didn't/couldn't/wouldn't because she was Marie and not a different person.

Cavacava

Great post BC!

Marchesk

I agree with BC. It's not pain or the striving of the will that causes suffering, it's when you lose purpose and become hopeless. It's the feeling that life is meaningless and filled with remorse, or what have you.

Marchesk

It's like the difference between having to work a job you hate to make ends meet, and having a career that you love. Doing work that you're passionate about will not always be easy or pain-free, and it can have it's own disappointments, but if you love it, it will be worth it to you. But a meaningless job (other than for money) can be soul crushing, and any discomforts you face doing it become very undesirable.

_db

↪Bitter Crank

↪Marchesk

I think I agree with you that meaning is ultimately what gives the a person's life value. No (reasonable) amount of pain or pleasure can make or break a life, it's up to the individual to make it worth its while.

However, I disagree with your assessment that pain is not suffering. If physical or psychological pain was not uncomfortable to us, than we would not have a problem with it. Each day we deal with a lot of things; life is a kind of burden that requires meaning to keep going. So it is worthwhile to look into mitigating these kinds of experiences.

Thorongil

Does Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will have any explanatory power over anything that isn't already covered by evolutionary biology? Occam's Razor seems to apply here. — darthbarracuda

I don't see the relevance of this, unless you're simply assuming that scientific materialism is true, which would be begging the question.

You and I and everyone else here are alive and unless we have the guts to kill ourselves we might as well make the most of it and mitigate as much suffering as we can. Viva la vida.

The unexamined life is a literal waste of time, kicking the can down the road, hopscotching from one desire to the next while suffering the aches and pains and burdens of existence. To examine life, understand the dilemma of it, and actually know what kind of circus it actually is, and still consciously decide to keep living (i.e. living authetically; not-committing-suicide-every-day is a choice, not the null position), is rebellious and enough to fill a man's heart. Anybody can live...but it takes a certain kind of person to live absurdly, and that is worth some merit. — darthbarracuda

No offense, but I don't see any arguments here. You've merely restated your original claim in more words. Correct me if I missed something.

Marchesk

However, I disagree with your assessment that pain is not suffering. If physical or psychological pain was not uncomfortable to us, than we would not have a problem with it. — darthbarracuda

Pain can be suffering. I guess it depends on the degree and the significance. I can feel discomfort going for a long walk, but I wouldn't consider that suffering. The net result is that I feel good. But if my car broke down in the middle of nowhere and I had to walk for hours when I needed to be somewhere, then it would be considered a greater discomfort. Not suffering per se, but an inconvenience I'd be upset about, at least for a little while, depending non how important being somewhere was.

Each day we deal with a lot of things; life is a kind of burden that requires meaning to keep going. So it is worthwhile to look into mitigating these kinds of experiences. — darthbarracuda

That's true. Life isn't ideal for most of us. The question is whether it needs to be ideal to be worth living, which sounds like a ridiculous standard. It can be worth living and problematic at the same time. The question becomes at what point do problems overwhelm a person's life and make it not worth living?

_db

No offense, but I don't see any arguments here. You've merely restated your original claim in more words. Correct me if I missed something. — Thorongil

You asked for why. So I replied. I don't think there really was an argument per se.

Thorongil

↪darthbarracuda

Hmm, I don't know if I follow. C'est la vie.

_db

↪Thorongil

I said "viva la vida" until it goes to shit, and you replied "why?". I was simply responding to that.

Thorongil

↪darthbarracuda

I know. Was I wrong to expect an argument or two as to why you hold such a position? :-}

Wayfarer

The Buddhist philosophy on Taṇhā that I talked about above does nothing more, in my view, than mitigate our eventual suffering. It cannot lead to nirvana, for nirvana does not exist outside of a conceptual goal.

~ Darth Barracuda

What does that actually mean? Nirvāṇa is elusive and indeed ineffable, but many a practicing Buddhist will know it regardless. That doesn't mean they have become a 'world-conquering hero' or 'one perfectly enlightened by themselves'. But your depiction of Nirvāṇa as either conceptual or a distant light at the end of a long tunnel is not based on experience, put it that way.

I got drawn towards Buddhism because I learned meditation practice. I got taught by a group a long while ago now who were kind of New Age, but also quite 'spiritual', but with a fairly secular orientation. So their type of teaching was how to clear out all your inner obstacles, the things you tell yourself that constantly undermine you - that kind of thing. And they also taught meditation, similar in style to the TM movement - 20 minute sessions morning and evening, mantra and visualization.

I got a lot out of that (although I have to say that what one does get out of it is often impossible to relate to others - it is something you have to see it for yourself.)

Which leads me back to Buddhism - one description of which is 'ehi-passiko', meaning literally, 'come and see'. So after learning meditation I read up on Buddhist meditation, vipassana in particular, and started learning about that. I got drawn to Buddhism because it made overall sense out of the various and disparate bits of understanding I had gotten through learning meditation and through reading spiritual books, which I had done a lot of.

So I've stayed with that practice ever since - actually more than 30 years now - I get up in the morning and sit. I don't really have any relationship with a Buddhist cultural institution apart from a Buddhist library where I meet bi-monthly for a kind of workshop session. But I'm not a 'temple Buddhist' or aligned with a traditional Buddhist sect (but feel the most affinity for Soto Zen).

But the important point that I'm trying to get to is that you do learn through meditation, in the Buddhist sense of dhyana, to understand and penetrate those 'causes of suffering' in the here and now, because it is something that we're actually doing. It is not something absrtact or remote. Of course we have to be willing to take that on, but really there's nothing stopping us except our habitual thoughts.

Buddhism, and all forms of yogic spirituality, understand mind as citta, which has certain innate qualities and attributes. These are generally obscured by vritti or by vikalpa which are habituated mental patterns and constructions; basically, just the continual play of thoughts. And those thoughts go a long way to constituting our day to day existence. So sitting meditation is simply learning to be aware of those - that is all. Just to see them as they are. In some ways it's simple, but it's not that easy, because our habituated attitudes have a life of their own and they don't appreciate having anyone notice them. They're 'hiding in plain sight' and they want to stay that way.

So - it's good you're aware of some of the theory behind Buddhism, but really it's a practical skill and discipline for the abatement of dukkha and the cultivation of sukha (ease, happiness.) And it is actually not that far away, it's not at the mythical end of the rainbow or in some future state. It's right here, but you have to reach for it.

Wayfarer

Still getting used to this interface.....posted twice and can't figure out how to delete the redundant entry....

BC

However, I disagree with your assessment that pain is not suffering. If physical or psychological pain was not uncomfortable to us, than we would not have a problem with it. — darthbarracuda

Oh, pain is a pain, no doubt about it. The thing is, we can stand pain. I've broken 5 different bones, had bad abrasions from wiping out on the bike, tore muscles in my thigh--and all these accidents were VERY painful. Like a lot of people, I've had bad headaches from time to time. An eye surgery was very painful. Etc. But the thing is, they were sort of tolerable (sometimes with a little help) AND they weren't going to last too long, and they didn't.

Pain that doesn't go away, like chronic and severe herpes zoster (shingles) is suffering. Shingles is only painful -- there are no other consequences. Very severe pain, even if we are perfectly ambulatory and can still think straight counts (in my book) as "suffering" and not "just pain". There's no standard line, either. What is tolerable for one person may be actual suffering for somebody else.

But pain alone, even severe pain (10/10), that is short term is endurable and doesn't deprive one's life of meaning. It might even give it some meaning. Somebody getting some ghastly dental procedure that will be over in 20 minutes and will leave one with only a sore mouth--however painful it was at the moment the heavy duty iron file was shoved up under one's gum into the base of one's brain and then slowly twisted--isn't suffering because it is over quickly. Is it worth complaining about? Absolutely! Is it worth getting out of the chair and kicking the dentist in the balls? Quite possibly. Suffering? No.

BC

↪Wayfarer

Did you try editing the re-post, and just deleting everything and then "posting" nothing?

Hmmm, maybe that doesn't work. Never mind. Ax a modulator.

_db

↪Thorongil

The "why" is contained within, as far as I am concerned.

_db

↪Wayfarer

When I meant nirvana, I meant the achievement of Buddha-hood, of stopping rebirth, or becoming that sage-like master, so to speak. I don't think this is possible. Also I don't think reincarnation is plausible. It is useful as a concept, though, like you said.

I was drawn to Buddhism because of the "Middle Path" it advocated between extreme sensual pleasures and extreme asceticism. I like it as a philosophy because I can live my life in a much more peaceful, calm, and happy way without actually changing much in terms of actual lifestyle; i.e. I don't have to join a temple, live on a mountain, reject all sensual pleasures (asceticism), etc. I would characterize Buddhism as a philosophy of balance and understanding, one that stems from compassion and a desire for the end of suffering.

Buddhism, and all forms of yogic spirituality, understand mind as citta, which has certain innate qualities and attributes. These are generally obscured by vritti or by vikalpa which are habituated mental patterns and constructions; basically, just the continual play of thoughts. And those thoughts go a long way to constituting our day to day existence. So sitting meditation is simply learning to be aware of those - that is all. Just to see them as they are. In some ways it's simple, but it's not that easy, because our habituated attitudes have a life of their own and they don't appreciate having anyone notice them. They're 'hiding in plain sight' and they want to stay that way. — Wayfarer

It seems like every day or so I learn some new wisdom from Buddhism. This is one of them it seems. One doesn't even have to actually accept citta, vritti or vikalkpa as actual entities for them to be usual as concepts to understand how we operate.

Suffering - Causes, Effects and Solutions

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions