Suffering

[Twilight Hue]

Isn't suffering just a perspective, perhaps even a state of mind?

Drop a sledgehammer on your bare foot. ;0)

Answer comes quickly.

 

[Trailblazer]

I myself have never prayed for more tests, because I am too selfish.

I myself have never prayed for more tests, because I do not have to.

“O thou seeker of the Kingdom! Thy letter was received. Thou hast written of the severe calamity that hath befallen thee—the death of thy respected husband. That honourable man hath been so subjected to the stress and strain of this world that his greatest wish was for deliverance from it. Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. If once this life should offer a man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow; such is the condition of this world. The wise man, therefore, doth not attach himself to this mortal life and doth not depend upon it; at some moments, even, he eagerly wisheth for death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 200

 

[Sunstone]

That is totally in line with my thinking too, @Sunstone

When I saw the topic, my brain translated the word 'suffering' for the word 'fail' because we DO, for the most part, learn a great deal from our failures. Over the years one of my main messages is that failure is good because it help you with... how to say... course correction. You realize, "Well, that didn't work so well. Let's try this!" and so on. Of course, I learned from the things I got right off the bat, but I learned far more from when I got things wrong. Is that about right for you?

Totally agree with you there, Paul. There's a huge difference between failure and suffering. Failure can teach us how to adapt. Although there is no law of nature that says you must fail before you succeed, most of us I reckon can personally testify to the fact that we often enough fail to one extent or another before succeeding when trying something new to us, and that our failures can even light the way to our later successes.

Years ago, I sucked at my first ever job in corporate sales. Simply sucked. But it seemed that each time I screwed up a sale, I learned a bit from it. Learned not only what not to do, but also a little bit about what to do. Six years later, after many such learning experiences, I became the top salesperson of the company I was then working for. Corny as it might sound to someone who has never been there him or herself, I could not have done it without all those learning experiences.

I think the same can be said for my marriages. Although I've never tested it because I am happily celibate these days, I think if I ever were to again marry, I'd have a very happy marriage because I have learned so much from my two previous failed marriages. So I think you're spot on, Paul!

 

[Trailblazer]

Position A: Suffering is not ideal and should be ended

Position B: Suffering is not ideal, but it helps us grow, know what bad is, and develops character- so it shouldn't necessarily end

Buddhism seems to take A&B together.

Suffering has a use in Buddhism- if and only if it brings one to practice, so that it can be ultimately overcome. That things suffer is not somehow virtuous or ideal from a Buddhist perspective.

I take Position B and I think that it ultimately leads to Position A, but not until after we die and go to a spiritual realm. I do not think that all suffering can be ended in a material world because it is the material world that causes suffering. By detachment and living a simpler life, we can minimize suffering, but we cannot eliminate it.

Some people suffer more than others simply because of the hand they were dealt; genetics and childhood upbringing and life circumstances. So suffering is in a sense the luck of the draw. Nobody should ever be blamed for their suffering.

 

[Sunstone]

Dukkha is usually translated as "suffering" but probably would be better translated as something along the lines of "unnecessary suffering brought about by emotional/psychological clinging to something". The full concept is subtler than that, of course, but that would be a better translation than mere "suffering" in my opinion (and my opinion, mind you, is the opinion that the the gods themselves consistently favor).

An example of dukkha that most of us have firsthand knowledge of (at one time or another in our lives) and can relate to is hopelessly lusting for someone, fervently wishing to get "romantic" with them, but being thwarted in that desire. When one clings to such a desire, one's suffering is dukkha.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As hinted at by @ADigitalArtist suffering is part of the balance of life and while we are physical we will never be free from suffering

No issues with your post overall, but wondered why you linked 'physical' and 'suffering'.
I wouldn't see those as connected, so it stood out to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This thread seems necessary after seeing the varying opinions of RF users on the reality of suffering. It seems that suffering needs a thread to further discuss it, examine ideas of it, and see if there's any consensus to arise at about it.

I will present three views about suffering that exist in the mainstream as a starting point, and feel free to introduce others I may skip over. This is merely for the convenience of getting us started.

Position A: Suffering is not ideal and should be ended

Position B: Suffering is not ideal, but it helps us grow, know what bad is, and develops character- so it shouldn't necessarily end

Position C: Suffering is beautiful. If we embrace suffering we'll be sharing in the burden of God/Christ for all creation. Suffering presents us with a chance to be God/Christ, and suffer with him.

Buddhism seems to take A&B together. Suffering is absolutely bad from a Buddhist perspective, but at the same time- it has been reflected on by various masters as a way of seeing the futility of clinging to love of the world and possessions.

Suffering has a use in Buddhism- if and only if it brings one to practice, so that it can be ultimately overcome. That things suffer is not somehow virtuous or ideal from a Buddhist perspective.

I've encountered those that tend to be of Position B only. That suffering might be not ideal, but there are reasons it should continue.

This position is often set up in opposition to the Buddhist perspective. We are asked to consider that suffering makes us grow, or it causes us to overcome hurdles.

I think those that often hold to Position B do not realize they are arguing for Position A. Some of them may not even realize they stand with Position A concerning suffering.

Allow me to expound. I will attempt to show that Position B as often argued, is an extension of Position A. Most people arguing for Position B do not actually think suffering is ideal or good. Actually, if they did think so- I'd ask why suffering is a catalyst for overcoming in their perspective.

This argues that suffering is not good, and it's only usefulness is in pushing humans to overcome it. Position B typically is not that suffering is good, or should remain. Position B is more an active application of Position A.

That's why I think the two are probably more interrelated than often realized. Position A will usually lead one to Position B- because Position A is the motivator.

I don't think those arguing that suffering has a use are necessarily making a good case for it's being good or desirable. Yet often, when coming up against Buddhists- suffering is frequently appealed to that way.

Suffering is said to be useful and even admirable from a certain outlook, so Buddhism's desire to end it is short-sighted.

As stated, I don't think those that hold Position B while rejecting A are thinking through their premises very well. They are not in fact saying that being in suffering is good.

There are those that do hold such a position. Many of those can be relegated to what I defined above as Position C. This view is typically held by Christians of a certain sort. Mother Theresa is a good example of this kind of approach to suffering.

In a certain way, she stated many times during her life that suffering is beautiful. That she feels like suffering is the passion ever present. That she sees Christ when she looks at suffering.

I don't want to take up fifty paragraphs framing an OP, so I've said enough. There was no simple introduction of this subject.

Now let's begin. What do you think suffering is good for? Do you think suffering is desirable or repellent? Do you see something beautiful and transcendent in suffering? Do you think suffering should be ended?

This should be a good discussion.

Sorry, I can't add to the discussion. The OP made way too much sense to me, so very little to add.
Couldn't you throw in a couple of random political statements for me to aim at?

(In seriousness, well explained)

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Suffering is often due to ignorance

Buddhism typically seems to think it's MOSTLY due to ignorance. That goes for avoidable suffering we inflict on one another especially.

Ignorance of Oneness between us all, to care for each other, and live as one family

Yep, and this is a lot of avoidable suffering in the world today. That, or not carrying the conclusion of oneness far enough to action. Acting as though we are interconnected, and not only professing it.

Ignorance of what caused the physical illness to begin, which can often be diet, life style related, and is a warning we need to change

All very true, and as a Buddhist it would be possible to argue that all sickness is due to ignorance. Think something like lack of knowledge to treat said sickness, but of course- that assumes knowledge can one day do virtually anything.

Not realizing here is the Maya, and all illusion; thus not to take it all so seriously

That is part of it yes, but becoming indifferent because it's Maya is another trap. That's attachment to Maya as a concept. Apathy is part of the illusion of division and other vices.

Trying to hold onto something, we can not hold on to

Including ideologies, as it can happen.

Our blueprint for life, not matching what we find

Cognitive dissonance, but this one is tricky. Because it might be that we're always seeing things wrongly.

Within a few of those levels of ignorance, we can remove the suffering aspects by not being attached to our thoughts, and emotions, as that is what causes the suffering by trying to hold on.

Stoicism 101

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I have yet to have anyone coherently explain to me why suffering is bad.

Coherence can be a point of view, of course

For every one person who becomes kinder and more compassionate as the result of great suffering, there are two other people who become more bitter, cynical, insensitive, and destructive.

I tend to agree, which is why suffering is ultimately not good or ideal and needs to end at some time. Of course, even if it doesn't end now (humans don't manage to end it), it will end when this material reality is dissolved.

I tend to think the Buddha's saving all beings as emphasized in my school ties in with this dissolution of the material. It may even tie in with Maitreya's coming, as some views about that are apocalyptic in nature. That Maitreya will appear at the end of the world.

Position D: Suffering is self imposed and neither good or bad.

Mind expounding? Because I think this could only possibly be true of avoidable suffering, but if you think I can be convinced- try.

Dukkha leads to addiction, as can be demonstrated by the scientific studies referred to as "Rat Park."
Knowing it for what it is and understanding it can lead to the ending of it, and less propensity towards addiction.

The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think | HuffPost

Thank you. This is useful.

I think, it has to go from B to A path. Suffering is part of being of material world. But if people go by the path of enlightenment B will turn to A (I do not cover natural events but they are a part of natural Law too, human consciousness working together can eliminate suffering due to natural events).

I tend to agree, yes. B usually turns into A.

Isn't suffering just a perspective, perhaps even a state of mind?

The Stoics thought so, but they only seemed to explain avoidable suffering as such, which humans cause directly. Suffering as perspective can certainly be useful for growth and insight I think, and that's why I admire Stoicism, but I don't think it solves the entire problem.

 

[allfoak]

Coherence can be a point of view, of course



I tend to agree, which is why suffering is ultimately not good or ideal and needs to end at some time. Of course, even if it doesn't end now (humans don't manage to end it), it will end when this material reality is dissolved.

I tend to think the Buddha's saving all beings as emphasized in my school ties in with this dissolution of the material. It may even tie in with Maitreya's coming, as some views about that are apocalyptic in nature. That Maitreya will appear at the end of the world.



Mind expounding? Because I think this could only possibly be true of avoidable suffering, but if you think I can be convinced- try.



Thank you. This is useful.



I tend to agree, yes. B usually turns into A.



The Stoics thought so, but they only seemed to explain avoidable suffering as such, which humans cause directly. Suffering as perspective can certainly be useful for growth and insight I think, and that's why I admire Stoicism, but I don't think it solves the entire problem.

No single perspective solves the entire problem.
Paradox can only be understood when one can see that there are many persectives called truth.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I tend to agree, which is why suffering is ultimately not good or ideal and needs to end at some time. Of course, even if it doesn't end now (humans don't manage to end it), it will end when this material reality is dissolved.

I tend to think the Buddha's saving all beings as emphasized in my school ties in with this dissolution of the material.

This concept seems coherent to me.

 

[bobhikes]

Coherence can be a point of view, of course


Mind expounding? Because I think this could only possibly be true of avoidable suffering, but if you think I can be convinced- try.

All one needs to do is look at what people consider suffering to see it is an individual choice. Think of the worse type of suffering you had and somewhere in the world someone has it and doesn't consider it suffering they may even consider it a benefit. Suffering is not pain, some people celebrate pain and seek out pain. Suffering is your opinion of how bad and unfair something is to you and others. We are usually extremely wrong on the suffering of others.

Why it is neither good or bad, it is an opinion not a thing as such it only has any weight if you embrace it. You don't act because of suffering. Most people just use it as an explanation of why they are the way they are or others. In short suffering is just an excuse but we like excuses.

 

[Prestor John]

This thread seems necessary after seeing the varying opinions of RF users on the reality of suffering. It seems that suffering needs a thread to further discuss it, examine ideas of it, and see if there's any consensus to arise at about it.

I will present three views about suffering that exist in the mainstream as a starting point, and feel free to introduce others I may skip over. This is merely for the convenience of getting us started.

Position A: Suffering is not ideal and should be ended

Position B: Suffering is not ideal, but it helps us grow, know what bad is, and develops character- so it shouldn't necessarily end

Position C: Suffering is beautiful. If we embrace suffering we'll be sharing in the burden of God/Christ for all creation. Suffering presents us with a chance to be God/Christ, and suffer with him.

Buddhism seems to take A&B together. Suffering is absolutely bad from a Buddhist perspective, but at the same time- it has been reflected on by various masters as a way of seeing the futility of clinging to love of the world and possessions.

Suffering has a use in Buddhism- if and only if it brings one to practice, so that it can be ultimately overcome. That things suffer is not somehow virtuous or ideal from a Buddhist perspective.

I've encountered those that tend to be of Position B only. That suffering might be not ideal, but there are reasons it should continue.

This position is often set up in opposition to the Buddhist perspective. We are asked to consider that suffering makes us grow, or it causes us to overcome hurdles.

I think those that often hold to Position B do not realize they are arguing for Position A. Some of them may not even realize they stand with Position A concerning suffering.

Allow me to expound. I will attempt to show that Position B as often argued, is an extension of Position A. Most people arguing for Position B do not actually think suffering is ideal or good. Actually, if they did think so- I'd ask why suffering is a catalyst for overcoming in their perspective.

This argues that suffering is not good, and it's only usefulness is in pushing humans to overcome it. Position B typically is not that suffering is good, or should remain. Position B is more an active application of Position A.

That's why I think the two are probably more interrelated than often realized. Position A will usually lead one to Position B- because Position A is the motivator.

I don't think those arguing that suffering has a use are necessarily making a good case for it's being good or desirable. Yet often, when coming up against Buddhists- suffering is frequently appealed to that way.

Suffering is said to be useful and even admirable from a certain outlook, so Buddhism's desire to end it is short-sighted.

As stated, I don't think those that hold Position B while rejecting A are thinking through their premises very well. They are not in fact saying that being in suffering is good.

There are those that do hold such a position. Many of those can be relegated to what I defined above as Position C. This view is typically held by Christians of a certain sort. Mother Theresa is a good example of this kind of approach to suffering.

In a certain way, she stated many times during her life that suffering is beautiful. That she feels like suffering is the passion ever present. That she sees Christ when she looks at suffering.

I don't want to take up fifty paragraphs framing an OP, so I've said enough. There was no simple introduction of this subject.

Now let's begin. What do you think suffering is good for? Do you think suffering is desirable or repellent? Do you see something beautiful and transcendent in suffering? Do you think suffering should be ended?

This should be a good discussion.

I am a Latter-Day Saint and I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has suffered the pains ever imagined by Mankind and more. He has also taken upon Himself the punishments for all.

He did this because He loves us and that by so doing He could offer forgiveness to the penitent.

All that being said, when the time came for Him to suffer, in the Garden, He asked the Father if there were some other way, yet He ultimately was obedient to the will of the Father and suffered it.

Suffering is a tool that can either build us up or tear us down, depending on how we face and use it.

Christ did not come to Earth yearning to suffer, but He was willing to suffer, to sacrifice, to obtain something greater.

Christ has now risen above sin and death along with their accompanying sufferings and He has promised that we all can rise above them and become like Him.


If we endure suffering well, it will be for our good and the time will eventually come when we will suffer no more.

Then we will look back and remember our sufferings fondly, filled with gratitude, for we were given the opportunity to sacrifice something good in exchange for something greater.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This thread seems necessary after seeing the varying opinions of RF users on the reality of suffering. It seems that suffering needs a thread to further discuss it, examine ideas of it, and see if there's any consensus to arise at about it.

I will present three views about suffering that exist in the mainstream as a starting point, and feel free to introduce others I may skip over. This is merely for the convenience of getting us started.

Position A: Suffering is not ideal and should be ended

Position B: Suffering is not ideal, but it helps us grow, know what bad is, and develops character- so it shouldn't necessarily end

Position C: Suffering is beautiful. If we embrace suffering we'll be sharing in the burden of God/Christ for all creation. Suffering presents us with a chance to be God/Christ, and suffer with him.

Buddhism seems to take A&B together. Suffering is absolutely bad from a Buddhist perspective, but at the same time- it has been reflected on by various masters as a way of seeing the futility of clinging to love of the world and possessions.

Suffering has a use in Buddhism- if and only if it brings one to practice, so that it can be ultimately overcome. That things suffer is not somehow virtuous or ideal from a Buddhist perspective.

I've encountered those that tend to be of Position B only. That suffering might be not ideal, but there are reasons it should continue.

This position is often set up in opposition to the Buddhist perspective. We are asked to consider that suffering makes us grow, or it causes us to overcome hurdles.

I think those that often hold to Position B do not realize they are arguing for Position A. Some of them may not even realize they stand with Position A concerning suffering.

Allow me to expound. I will attempt to show that Position B as often argued, is an extension of Position A. Most people arguing for Position B do not actually think suffering is ideal or good. Actually, if they did think so- I'd ask why suffering is a catalyst for overcoming in their perspective.

This argues that suffering is not good, and it's only usefulness is in pushing humans to overcome it. Position B typically is not that suffering is good, or should remain. Position B is more an active application of Position A.

That's why I think the two are probably more interrelated than often realized. Position A will usually lead one to Position B- because Position A is the motivator.

I don't think those arguing that suffering has a use are necessarily making a good case for it's being good or desirable. Yet often, when coming up against Buddhists- suffering is frequently appealed to that way.

Suffering is said to be useful and even admirable from a certain outlook, so Buddhism's desire to end it is short-sighted.

As stated, I don't think those that hold Position B while rejecting A are thinking through their premises very well. They are not in fact saying that being in suffering is good.

There are those that do hold such a position. Many of those can be relegated to what I defined above as Position C. This view is typically held by Christians of a certain sort. Mother Theresa is a good example of this kind of approach to suffering.

In a certain way, she stated many times during her life that suffering is beautiful. That she feels like suffering is the passion ever present. That she sees Christ when she looks at suffering.

I don't want to take up fifty paragraphs framing an OP, so I've said enough. There was no simple introduction of this subject.

Now let's begin. What do you think suffering is good for? Do you think suffering is desirable or repellent? Do you see something beautiful and transcendent in suffering? Do you think suffering should be ended?

This should be a good discussion.

Absurd. All your choices assume that we can choose to keep suffering from happening. Lessen it at times yeah, but certainly not all, and last I heard, nobody can stop death.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Isn't suffering just a perspective, perhaps even a state of mind?

I have to agree with you. Suffering is universal. There is no one alive who has not suffered in some manner or another. It is how one views that suffering which makes the difference between those who accept it and learn from it and those who become bitter and wallow in self pity.

When we accept our suffering and look within to find the cause (speaking of the suffering of the mind here), we can find the cause and resolve to change what is causing it. Usually an attachment to something or someone who is not beneficial to a healthy perspective. Or as often attachment to thoughts which are not reality. Accept we are not perfect, accept suffering happens to all at some point, look inside and remove the cause. That is the way of Buddha.

As far as physical suffering, of course that is never good and never the fault of an attached mind. Many also suffer physically and it is good to recognize that is also a fact of life. Many times meditation and perspective can also relieve some of that suffering.

 

[sealchan]

I wrote the following lengthy thought on suffering in another thread and I offer it here as well as this thread is on the same general topic...

Here are some principles I apply to understanding the role and value of suffering in our human experience and in relationship with a belief in God:

• Life was created in a way that its creation and preservation requires the death of other life
• Both believers and non-believers experience suffering; it is a given in life. Those who don't think they do deny reality
• Those who believe in a sentient being who not only created our reality, but also is responsible for our experience in that reality, have someone to relate to about that experience and who may be empowered to offer some form of comfort, if not relief
• The experience of suffering is an evolutionarily evolved psychological experience that guides the individual organism into making choices to promote its individual or its group's longevity. It is a key aspect of our psychological will to live and exert ourselves in an effort to live
• Human beings, with their advanced cognitive skills, are able to freely choose suffering for a goal that will net them greater success further down the road

I think that one of the great problematic understandings of reading the Bible is to believe that the Bible shows us the way to AVOID suffering. That if we are righteous, we won't hurt. This is childish and just plain against the facts of experience for either believers or non-believers.

The Bible is full of descriptions of the suffering of its people and it would not be accurate to say that suffering is completely encompassed by the sins of those who suffer. However, the focus of the Bible is on showing convincingly that if you act a certain way, you will avoid some measure of suffering. So the Bible does read as if all suffering can be dismissed by people who avoid sin. At the same time there is no real way to avoid sin completely and the one person, in the Bible's view, who did died at a young age as a result. So there you go. Suffering is inevitable.

My overall wisdom on this is that suffering is unavoidable, but it is far better to choose your suffering than it is to let suffering choose you. This IS the message that religion SHOULD be providing, but so often something more simplistic and attractive is what is provided.

In many cases the Bible's stories tell of great suffering and the main concern is to focus those who are greatly suffering on their path to their relief and salvation. We, who, perhaps, suffer not so much, then mistake this for a proactive means to escape all suffering and sin. But such a view is untenable and unexperiencable. It is not life or living a life to avoid all pain.

Once God is seen as responsible for creation and for the suffering that results, then we inevitably ask whether in many cases that suffering, for which God is ultimately responsible whether or not the one who suffers has sinned or not, is an example of fairness or justice. That is a good, hard question and I think that the Book of Job addresses that question fairly directly, but not directly enough to be not subject to debate. The answer, I think, is that life requires death to exist...so what exactly seems fair in this context?

On this question there should be no dispute about the basic facts of our existence between believers and non-believers.

I should add that the tradition of the Goddess has answers to the meaning and value of the life-death-rebirth cycle that the Bible has tried to circumvent. Obviously Jesus' ministry fits this pattern, but again, it has had to divorce itself from the Goddess tradition in order to preserve the highly patriarchal attitude of the Bible. Still the authors of the Bible and their inspiration is mindful, albeit indirectly, of the same mysteries of our experience as are the Goddess traditions.

 

[1213]

...Position A: Suffering is not ideal and should be ended
...

I believe originally there was no suffering. Suffering came after people wanted to know evil. And because of that, we have this lesson, in this first death, about good and evil. I think this was not necessary, but because people wanted, it is ok. I just hope people would learn something good about this. And in the end, evil and suffering will also end, and I think it is good.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

All one needs to do is look at what people consider suffering to see it is an individual choice.

I don't think starving to death is a choice. Somehow it doesn't seem like something people in poor nations, especially kids choose.

Why it is neither good or bad, it is an opinion not a thing as such it only has any weight if you embrace it.

I don't react to suffering on opinion. I react on that little something most humans possess called empathy, that causes me to feel sorrow for the other people suffering. Are you saying you kill empathy, or you don't have any?

Absurd. All your choices assume that we can choose to keep suffering from happening. Lessen it at times yeah, but certainly not all, and last I heard, nobody can stop death.

I think we could stop suffering from happening if we knew how, potentially. That is the most my choices assume. I also assume there is preventable suffering, yes. Funny you mention death, because death isn't suffering as an experience- from a certain outlook. It's suffering by prospect.

However, transhumanism may one day end even death.

So the Bible does read as if all suffering can be dismissed by people who avoid sin. At the same time there is no real way to avoid sin completely and the one person, in the Bible's view, who did died at a young age as a result. So there you go. Suffering is inevitable.

There are ways in which I find the Bible to be extremely short in addressing problems of suffering. It is very dualistic in it's message, and dualism always leads to suffering somewhere. Once you've placed a division between self and other, an actual separation you take as grounded in reality- you can justify just about any evil you do to 'other'.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't think starving to death is a choice. Somehow it doesn't seem like something people in poor nations, especially kids choose.

I don't react to suffering on opinion. I react on that little something most humans possess called empathy, that causes me to feel sorrow for the other people suffering. Are you saying you kill empathy, or you don't have any?

First starving to death is wrong and not suffering. Pain is not suffering wallowing in that pain is suffering. Empathy is feeling another's pain through emotion and again not suffering. You will never be able to stop another's suffering only they can.

Death is not suffering but release from all possibility of suffering. The only suffering possible in death is the eternal punishment given to those who sinned. That is perhaps the only time you do not have a choice to suffer.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

However, transhumanism may one day end even death.

I take it that's different than pre- or post-transhumanism. I can't keep my psychobabble terminology straight.