Cessation of Suffering and Rebirth...Why?

[sandy whitelinger]

LOL, this thread is prolly gonna die a quick death...

Probably from suffering.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ok, then I still see nothing in what you offered that correlates suffering leading to dying. And if you manage to do that please explain what is wrong with dying.

I am not a Buddhist, nor have I ever studied Buddhism or Hinduism (I don't follow any such paths), but I will attempt to answer this for you...

There is nothing wrong with suffering or dying. It is our overactive human minds that make bad things or wrong things out of what are otherwise natural everyday experiences for all conscious living creatures. Man's problem is that we tend to dwell on those things that cause us stress or suffering rather than freeing ourselves of those attachments. We are slaves to the mind. The objective is to still that mind so we are no longer slaves to it.


---

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram sandy :namaste

You are talking about stress. I was asking about suffering.

please ask any question you wish ...

if translating Dukkha I would have used suffering , as the Budddha identified the cycle if life and birth to be un satisfactory , due to its imperminent tansitory nature and that there is no escaping birth , old age , sickness and death .

there are also degrees of suffering in daliy life the Buddha atributed these to our levels of attatchment , there is also the suffering caused by ignorance .

unfortunately there seems to be a modern take on Buddhism which prefers to call call suffering stress ? but the sanskrit Duhkha from which the Pali dukkha originates translates as 'suffering' , greif , dissagreable , distressfull , full of sorrow , .....

there are many words used in translation from pali which are not wholely inkeeping with the original usage which can cause quite some amount of confusion .it is often usefull to refer back to sanskrit to gain a fuller perspective .

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I am not a Buddhist, nor have I ever studied Buddhism or Hinduism (I don't follow any such paths), but I will attempt to answer this for you...

There is nothing wrong with suffering or dying. It is our overactive human minds that make bad things or wrong things out of what are otherwise natural everyday experiences for all conscious living creatures. Man's problem is that we tend to dwell on those things that cause us stress or suffering rather than freeing ourselves of those attachments. We are slaves to the mind. The objective is to still that mind so we are no longer slaves to it.


---

This I agree with. I think that the daily practice of Christianity aims for this same effect only through a different method than other practices.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

namaskaram sandy :namaste



please ask any question you wish ...

if translating Dukkha I would have used suffering , as the Budddha identified the cycle if life and birth to be un satisfactory , due to its imperminent tansitory nature and that there is no escaping birth , old age , sickness and death .

there are also degrees of suffering in daliy life the Buddha atributed these to our levels of attatchment , there is also the suffering caused by ignorance .

unfortunately there seems to be a modern take on Buddhism which prefers to call call suffering stress ? but the sanskrit Duhkha from which the Pali dukkha originates translates as 'suffering' , greif , dissagreable , distressfull , full of sorrow , .....

there are many words used in translation from pali which are not wholely inkeeping with the original usage which can cause quite some amount of confusion .it is often usefull to refer back to sanskrit to gain a fuller perspective .

My question still remains, "What is wrong with suffering?"

 

[ratikala]

My question still remains, "What is wrong with suffering?"

suffering is simply a part of life and to some extent a degree of suffering is good for us in that it might help us learn , but on the whole no one wishes to experience suffering , nor would they wish to see others suffer un nececarily , the path that the Buddha taught reveals methods by which we can reduce our own suffering by altering our perception , and also teaching us that we may reduce the suffering of others by living according to a moral or ethical life style .

 

[Sees]

My question still remains, "What is wrong with suffering?"

Maybe the better question is "what is wrong aside from suffering?"

Happiness is the next big thing after survival itself, with or without philosophy, religion, etc.

 

[Runewolf1973]

please ask any question you wish ...

if translating Dukkha I would have used suffering , as the Budddha identified the cycle if life and birth to be un satisfactory , due to its imperminent tansitory nature and that there is no escaping birth , old age , sickness and death.

Do animals in nature percieve this all to be unsatisfactory as well? It is simply one's own mind or attachments that make an otherwise natural process seem somehow unsatisfactory or in need of improving.

You see, that is where I get my understanding from...observing nature. Not from books or paths or religions.


---

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Do animals in nature percieve this all to be unsatisfactory as well? It is simply one's own mind or attachments that make an otherwise natural process seem somehow unsatisfactory or in need of improving.

You see, that is where I get my understanding...from observing nature. Not from books or paths or religions.


---

Ever seen a dog upset about not getting the table scraps?

That's dukkha.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ever seen a dog upset about not getting the table scraps?

That's dukkha.

So is dukkha a natural survival instinct? Perhaps humans just took it a little too far. They got a little too upset or a little too greedy. Now we think we somehow deserve even more by being relieved of that which upsets us or causes us to suffer above and before all other creatures.

---

 

[Sees]

So is dukkha a natural survival instinct? Perhaps humans just took it a little too far.

Simply getting what you don't want and not getting what you so want.... That our wants are imperfect compounds it even more

The theory for some is to have little or zero want in light of it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The theory for some is to have little or zero want in light of it.

It is still a desire to "have" something we percieve that we don't have or feel we deserve. I get what you mean though.

 

[Sees]

It is still a desire to "have" something we percieve that we don't have or feel we deserve. I get what you mean though.

I definitely want anyways even though I understand the philosophy of it. I do my best towards what is good, healthy, holy, beneficial, helpful, etc. and then what may be will be. I don't subscribe to impartiality/indifference or disenchantment. There is a fork in the road and heroes go off-roading

 

[Runewolf1973]

I definitely want anyways even though I understand the philosophy of it. I do my best towards what is good, healthy, holy, beneficial, helpful, etc. and then what may be will be. I don't subscribe to impartiality/indifference or disenchantment. There is a fork in the road and heroes go off-roading

Haha!! I like that. Because we are what we are...humans with a mind and the ability to think, we must learn to use it wisely and if we can ease the suffering of other creatures or other humans, we should do so. We should not sit blindly and do nothing if there is something we can do.


---

 

[Penumbra]

So if the end result of the Buddhist path is the cessation of suffering and rebirth, does that not amount to just another desire or craving of sorts? What happens if one does not desire the cessation of suffering or the cessation of the rebirth cycle? Oneness with Brahman the way I see it, is to simply do what nature does and that means to continually change, transform...to basically do what energy or matter does. The continuation of that natural transformative cycle. Rather than desire the release from this cyclic, transformative nature of existence, should we not simply accept our place in this existence and "roll with the tide" so to speak? Through reincarnation or rebirth I have no desire to achieve some higher enlightened state. All is Brahman. The way I see it, there is no higher enlightened state. There is nothing to gain, nothing to achieve, no ultimate goal, simply BE the Brahman.

I view Buddhism as escapism, for the most part.

Cultures have had different responses to the reality of suffering, and some of them have gone in the direction of saying that it's best to kill off all desire entirely and then be this sort of perfect but usually deliberately vaguely described type of consciousness (with a range of different descriptions from Brahman to anatta) that persists eternally without clinging and without cessation, and apparently no longer requiring a physical form. People seem pretty unclear or at least not in agreement about what exactly it is they're trying to do; like I've seen threads here going on dozens of pages where Buddhists and Hindus are debating with each other and within their own religion about whether they all have selves or not and what exactly that means anyway.

It's understandable I think, that some cultures and some individuals would find that desirable, to try to kill all desire and attachment to try to eliminate the bad parts of life too. Life can be hard, and is harder for some than others.

Those religions, like other religions, require a lot of metaphysical claims to be correct, in order to make sense, for the most part. Like, rebirth/reincarnation has to be true for most of their more serious methods and goals to make sense. If a person is living an enjoyable life and doesn't buy into the claim that they're stuck in an endless cycle of life, then it makes little sense for them to begin a multi-year or multi-decade quest to start trying to eliminate their desires and detach themselves from everything. At most, only basic meditation and internal reflection to be aware of and to quiet their thoughts would be useful, not the whole rest of the package about systematically trying to uproot all of the natural desires of life. Similarly, one has to believe that consciousness can exist in some blissful form apart from the body, if things like Nirvana and Moksha are pursued rather than pure oblivion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I view Buddhism as escapism, for the most part.

Cultures have had different responses to the reality of suffering, and some of them have gone in the direction of saying that it's best to kill off all desire entirely and then be this sort of perfect but usually deliberately vaguely described type of consciousness (with a range of different descriptions from Brahman to anatta) that persists eternally without clinging and without cessation, and apparently no longer requiring a physical form. People seem pretty unclear or at least not in agreement about what exactly it is they're trying to do; like I've seen threads here going on dozens of pages where Buddhists and Hindus are debating with each other and within their own religion about whether they all have selves or not and what exactly that means anyway.

It's understandable I think, that some cultures and some individuals would find that desirable, to try to kill all desire and attachment to try to eliminate the bad parts of life too. Life can be hard, and is harder for some than others.

Those religions, like other religions, require a lot of metaphysical claims to be correct, in order to make sense, for the most part. Like, rebirth/reincarnation has to be true for most of their more serious methods and goals to make sense. If a person is living an enjoyable life and doesn't buy into the claim that they're stuck in an endless cycle of life, then it makes little sense for them to begin a multi-year or multi-decade quest to start trying to eliminate their desires and detach themselves from everything. At most, only basic meditation and internal reflection to be aware of and to quiet their thoughts would be useful, not the whole rest of the package about systematically trying to uproot all of the natural desires of life. Similarly, one has to believe that consciousness can exist in some blissful form apart from the body, if things like Nirvana and Moksha are pursued rather than pure oblivion.

An interesting and thoughtful response. Thank you.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's what I always wondered.

There is only Brahman, who is always changing, and thus Brahman cannot be reborn.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

suffering is simply a part of life and to some extent a degree of suffering is good for us in that it might help us learn , but on the whole no one wishes to experience suffering , nor would they wish to see others suffer un nececarily , the path that the Buddha taught reveals methods by which we can reduce our own suffering by altering our perception , and also teaching us that we may reduce the suffering of others by living according to a moral or ethical life style .

Ok, you say that no one like suffering or wants to see but have not given what is wrong with it. Until it can be shown to be wrong, trying to get rid of it is pointless.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Maybe the better question is "what is wrong aside from suffering?"

Happiness is the next big thing after survival itself, with or without philosophy, religion, etc.

Or, I could ask the question, "What is right with happiness?" Is an eternal search for happiness without suffering just a form of hedonism?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ever seen a dog upset about not getting the table scraps?

That's dukkha.

No, bit I saw a video about dogs upset that the cat was sleeping in their beds. Is that dukkha?