Suffering

[Buddha Dharma]

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

Not sure what post-transhumanism might look like as we're still pre

Not sure what you mean by psychobabble.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

First starving to death is wrong and not suffering.

How is it not suffering?

Pain is not suffering wallowing in that pain is suffering.

Pain is not suffering? Yeah okay...

Are you trolling?

Empathy is feeling another's pain through emotion and again not suffering.

You haven't demonstrated to me that you understand empathy. I find that concerning.

 

[bobhikes]

How is it not suffering?



Pain is not suffering? Yeah okay...

Are you trolling?



You haven't demonstrated to me that you understand empathy. I find that concerning.

Did Gandhi consider his hunger strike suffering or was it an purposeful act of rebellion. Hunger strikes have been used around the world to inspire others to change. Do the participants feel they are suffering.

You are familiar with the term masochist a person that seeks out pain an gets enjoyment from it. They are real people and exist.

It is quite hard to demonstrate empathy through an text message, if you understood empathy you would know that.

 

[Fool]

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.

complacency breeds atrophy. change usually, but not always, results in growth, or evolution.

i see suffering as a mountain. the closer one ascends to the pinnacle, the more one is susceptible to sliding backwards, or having taken step upon step to rise above the lowlands to garner a greater view.


The Conference of the Birds - Wikipedia


we could build a bridge from pinnacle to pinnacle and get over ourselves

 

[Fool]

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

yes

 

[SalixIncendium]

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 identify with position A. I don't think suffering is good, desirable, or beautiful, and the endgame, in my view, is to eliminate suffering.

Suffering, as I see it, is a consequence of choice, whether made at a conscious or subconscious level. The key to eliminating suffering is to understand the choice, and understand the consequences of that choice, and to act in another fashion to ensure the same or similar choice doesn't lead to such suffering moving forward.

While I agree with this assessment about suffering making a person turn inward...

Suffering almost always turns a person inward and makes them much more self-centered, closed off, and insensitive to others and to the world. It has fewer real lessons to teach than most people claim it has, and the few that it does have to teach are for the most part negative and far shallower than the lessons taught by love. 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. At least, that's my take on it.

...becoming self-centered, closed off, and insensitive, in my experience, is a knee-jerk reaction to suffering, caused by ignorance of the choice leading to the suffering, or refusal to understand the choice leading to the consequence.

The person that has become kinder and more compassionate, IMO, is the person that has made the effort to understand that the suffering they endured was a consequence of choice, and have taken steps to understand the choice and made a concerted effort to change behavioral patterns when presented with such a choice moving forward.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Did Gandhi consider his hunger strike suffering or was it an purposeful act of rebellion. Hunger strikes have been used around the world to inspire others to change. Do the participants feel they are suffering.

I can't believe you're throwing that out there as a comparison to countries where people actually starve to death

 

[Koldo]

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.

One of the easiest ways to be wrong about something is to project yourself into others.
Just like you did right there.

 

[Koldo]

I identify with position A. I don't think suffering is good, desirable, or beautiful, and the endgame, in my view, is to eliminate suffering.

Suffering, as I see it, is a consequence of choice, whether made at a conscious or subconscious level. The key to eliminating suffering is to understand the choice, and understand the consequences of that choice, and to act in another fashion to ensure the same or similar choice doesn't lead to such suffering moving forward.

While I agree with this assessment about suffering making a person turn inward...



...becoming self-centered, closed off, and insensitive, in my experience, is a knee-jerk reaction to suffering, caused by ignorance of the choice leading to the suffering, or refusal to understand the choice leading to the consequence.

The person that has become kinder and more compassionate, IMO, is the person that has made the effort to understand that the suffering they endured was a consequence of choice, and have taken steps to understand the choice and made a concerted effort to change behavioral patterns when presented with such a choice moving forward.

I truly find this victim blaming view to be disgusting.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I truly find this victim blaming view to be disgusting.

I find your response to my view to be juvenile, lacking in substance, and rooted in ignorance. *shrugs*

 

[Koldo]

• 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

I have always found this part to be rather odd. It sounds like some sort of Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Koldo]

I find your response to my view to be juvenile, lacking in argument or rebuttal, and rooted in ignorance. *shrugs*

It was not an argument nor a rebuttal. It was merely my view.
I find it rather funny that you would criticize my view for what it was not intended to be.

I merely intended to show my disgust for the victim blaming in your post. That's all.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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!

I think suffering can be a consequence of failure, as I was alluding to above. What one does with that failure can lead to suffering by way of either an inability or refusal to understand the choices that lead to failure. Conversely, if one gains an understanding of the choices that lead to failure, one be successful though taking alternate action given the same or similar choice moving forward leading to avoidance of suffering.

 

[bobhikes]

One of the easiest ways to be wrong about something is to project yourself into others.
Just like you did right there.

But I don't project it comes from meeting the people that are supposedly suffering from hunger and other things. They have told me personally that they are happy and offended by my view of their life. They want to be treated with respect and not as victims which they don't consider themselves as. I found out early treat others as equals and they will like it. They will still share with you there problems and allow you to help, if they are your equal. I have also found that those that are always suffering, wearing there heart always on there sleeve are always going to be that way. Their suffering is their badge it actually makes them happy to suffer because of others views.

 

[Koldo]

But I don't project it comes from meeting the people that are supposedly suffering from hunger and other things. They have told me personally that they are happy and offended by my view of their life.

Do you mean you have met people literally starving and they told you they are happy ?
Or do you mean you have met people that eat just enough to survive and they told you they are happy ?

There is a world of difference between them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It was not an argument nor a rebuttal. It was merely my view.
I find it rather funny that you would criticize my view for what it was not intended to be.

I merely intended to show my disgust for the victim blaming in your post. That's all.

I edited my response before you replied here, as I realized your post was not intended as an argument or rebuttal, but did, indeed, lack substance, and didn't leave much to understand the reason for your disgust.

If your intent was to simply express your disgust without promoting discussion, then your disgust is duly noted.

 

[bobhikes]

Do you mean you have met people literally starving and they told you they are happy ?
Or do you mean you have met people that eat just enough to survive and they told you they are happy ?

There is a world of difference between them.

Only in your mind.

 

[Koldo]

Only in your mind.

What ?
You are hilarious, but this is the 'religious debates' section on this forum and not the 'jokes' one.

 

[sealchan]

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'.

I think that once you set aside your compassion and empathy, then you let such philosophical matters as duality and such drive how you justify your actions. Looking at someone's suffering and not feeling moved to act, to empathize indicates a deadening of the human psychology.

Besides who is making a distinction between self and other?

 

[bobhikes]

I can't believe you're throwing that out there as a comparison to countries where people actually starve to death

You started the OP about suffering and how bad or good it is. You are belittling anyone who doesn't share your view. The truth is suffering does not have to be fixed, it is a result of how you feel about injustices, just as a person suffers from hunger a person also suffer's from not being able to buy something, clearly we don't need to fix all suffering. The fact is we don't have to do anything about suffering and we can't. We can and should concentrate on the inadequacies, the injustices and the racism that causes most people to feel like they are suffering. If you are going to concentrate on suffering you will never fix anything.

 

[sealchan]

I have always found this part to be rather odd. It sounds like some sort of Stockholm syndrome.

Yes, perhaps! But is it Stockholm syndrome if you can never leave your tormentors grasp?

But joking aside, how does one confront the cruelty and destructiveness of just nature, let alone humanity, without being moved to making some sort of peace with it, even if begrudgingly? Or can one remain perpetually aloof from the world without taking whatever may come, to some extent, personally? At some point, perhaps, there is a value in accepting the vastness of space, the frailty of our planet and the inevitability of death...if we lived as such things weren't real then what sort of psychological disorder might we then be flirting with?