Suffering

[Vee]

In another thread, it was suggested that suffering is a result of past sins. While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

In your view, from where does suffering come?

Being very pragmatic about it, suffering can be physical, emotional or both. Suffering because you were impacted by a natural disaster or a serious illness has a physical origin and sometimes it's not at all your fault. Stuff like that can happen to anyone.
Emotional suffering can be linked to what you mentioned - attachment and desire - but for me, above all it comes from a sense of being treated unfairly. If you love someone who doesn't have the same feelings for you, you may feel it's unfair because that person should love you back. If you're being bullied you might be in emotional pain because you're a good person who deserves kindness and respect, so being bullied is a source of pain. The possibilities are endless.
There are sources of suffering that are a result of our actions, others are part of someone else's actions, and some just happen because sometimes life sucks. That's my take if you don't want to bring sin into the discussion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Things that just are. It requires no attachments or desires. Sometimes it's just a part of life, something that happens due to being born.

 

[halbhh]

In another thread, it was suggested that suffering is a result of past sins. While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

In your view, from where does suffering come?

Just from being in mortal bodies, which naturally experience a lot of pain around processes or events that can kill these bodies.

Pain is for our aid (for help in temporary survival). Even non-physical social losses are painful also, since social connections are a survival advantage.

So, pain is built into mortal life, for our immediate benefit, as an ongoing aid.

No ability for pain = quicker death.

But there is a bigger-picture answer, if you like to hear it.

 

[Fool]

In another thread, it was suggested that suffering is a result of past sins. While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

In your view, from where does suffering come?

the lack of unconditional love

 

[danieldemol]

In another thread, it was suggested that suffering is a result of past sins. While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

In your view, from where does suffering come?

Suffering comes from nature.

 

[Jainarayan]

In another thread, it was suggested that suffering is a result of past sins. While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

In your view, from where does suffering come?

I long ago jettisoned the idea of sin and punishment in the Abrahamic sense. My idea of sin is "wrong action" when it involves someone or something else. Attachment and suffering, not sins, are the results of karma and dharma sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. I sometimes think it's my dharma, maybe a result of karma from past actions and lives, to have taken rescue animals, for example. A few of them were sick and dying, and it broke my heart to see them leave because I got attached to them. I cry watching ASPCA rescue commercials, for God’s sake! This is either karmic punishment or payback. I also see suffering definitely as a result of attachment and even desire.

 

[blü 2]

In another thread, it was suggested that suffering is a result of past sins. While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

In your view, from where does suffering come?

Suffering indicates enduring physical pain, or distress, or injury.

These things are found in all human environments ─ all animal environments, for that matter.

The only time "sin" would be a factor would be from an internal sense of having done some specific act or course of conduct that was wrong in one's own terms, producing strong and ongoing feelings of guilt and/or regret; or having a sense of guilt imposed on one from outside, as with the teachings of certain Christian and other sects.

Sins from a previous life? Nah.

 

[Trailblazer]

In your view, from where does suffering come?

I believe that suffering comes from being human or animal, all sentient beings suffer, some suffer much more than others, often through no fault of their own. I believe that all suffering is derived from having a physical body and living in the material world, but since we have a physical body and we live in a material world suffering is unavoidable. To say and many Baha'is do that we can somehow be in the spiritual world when we are not there yet, is patently absurd. Sure we can focus on the spiritual and that will minimize suffering but it will not eliminate it altogether. Anyone who believes that has never really suffered, in which case it is easy for them to spout platitudes.

In another thread, it was suggested that suffering is a result of past sins. While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

I think that is an oversimplification and it is judgmental, because it is as much as saying that if someone suffers it is because they are attached or they have desire. Who is to say that about any other human being? Imo, only God can judge. I realize this is a Baha'i viewpoint but I do not agree. It is so judgmental and heartless and lacking in compassion to say that a person who for example loses a loved one is "attached." In my opinion something is psychologically wrong with people who are so detached that do not even feel sad when a loved one dies. Sadly, this is what religious beliefs can do to people, make them into automatons who "just believe" ther religious teachings without even thinking, oblivious to the suffering of other people.

One reason why I do not associate with Baha'is because I know they have this attitude about suffering and the last thing I need is to be judged by them; and even if not spoken, the thoughts are still there because it comes with their beliefs.

To tell people who suffer just need to be more detached is heartless as well as arrogant, and the sad thing is that these people cannot even understand WHY they are arrogant. Basically they are saying "if you were more like ME and you were detached and had no desires you would not suffer."

I make a distinction between pain (which I have this morning) and suffering. Pain (physical or emotional) is inevitable. Pain is just an object in my consciousness. Suffering is a reaction to that object. It's how one reacts to the pain that causes suffering.

You act as if a person has total control over how they react to physical or emotional pain, but that is simply not the case. No psychologist or psychiatrist is going to agree that is the case. To say that is true for everyone to commit the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

I don't see detachment as lack of care. Once can still care, but not remain attached to the point where one identifies someone's death as a part of themselves.

I do not believe that is why people grieve the loss of a loved one and thus suffer. They grieve and suffer because they loved that person or animal. You are trying to frame it as selfish, but it is quite the opposite. It is because they cared about the other that they suffer. It is not about self.

I suffered when my daughter died. A lot. I was attached. Very attached. Once I broke that attachment, I broke free of the suffering. Does this mean I don't care? No. Does this mean I don't feel pain when I think about it? No. I just don't attach myself to these emotions.

Your experience is your experience but it is not everyone’s experience. All humans are very different and they react to situations very differently. Imo, suffering is not something anyone should ever be judged for, directly or indirectly.

 

[alypius]

While I have no concept of "sin" in my worldview, I see suffering as a result of attachment and desire.

If someone had not attachments or desires and accidentally stubbed his or her toe, then would he or she experience suffering?

 

[Heyo]

If someone had not attachments or desires and accidentally stubbed his or her toe, then would he or she experience suffering?

You don't stub your toe "accidentally". You didn't pay attention.
I won't say that all pain or suffering is self inflicted but much more is than we are willing to admit. I believe we have agency in our life and often we are able to prevent, mitigate or end suffering. Failing to do so is due to laziness or stupidity.

 

[Martin]

You don't stub your toe "accidentally". You didn't pay attention.
I won't say that all pain or suffering is self inflicted but much more is than we are willing to admit. I believe we have agency in our life and often we are able to prevent, mitigate or end suffering. Failing to do so is due to laziness or stupidity.

If I look honestly, a large chunk of the suffering in my life has been unwittingly self-inflicted.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Where does karma fit in here? Some of our present suffering is due to past mistakes, which might be called "sins".

Most mistakes or indiscretions that I'm aware of are a product of desire or attachment. Can you think of any that are not?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Will you then avoid attachment and desire, say, with spouse and children and intimate friendships?

Avoidance in and of itself is an desire. There is no need to avoid or pursue.

While I have no spouse, I have wonderful relationships with my child and friends, primarily because I recognize the divinity in them rather than attaching myself to the baggage of their own desires and attachments.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I view this on a scale. Given the same physical pain, like a broken arm, or a bout of the flu, it's not about either suffering or not suffering, but to what degree the individual suffers. Some folks are in charge of their emotions, while others aren't, and it's on a scale. Some people cry easily, while other rarely cry. The range runs the gamut of many things, including grief, financial hardship, reading a scary story or going to a great movie , and more.

I agree, but I prefer seeing this as degrees of attachments to one's emotions rather than being in charge of them.

Even a jivanmukta can cry. But s/he is not attached to the sadness, but recognizes the tears and sadness are an object on consciousness brought on by stimuli in transactional reality.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Depends what you mean by suffering. Not being religious i see it as depicted from a religious standpoint as, "yeah, he/she is suffering because they don't subscribe to my version of faith, just goes to show, rock on god"

From a personal standpoint i see your attachment simile. I was very attached to the part of my large intestine that got cut away, and following a badly healed bile duct was seriously suffering almost to the point of death for several months until a second operation corrected the problem.

To me, suffering is persistent pain.

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "suffering," and as @Secret Chief already mentioned, the concept that I'm speaking of is duhkha, a Sanskrit word for which there is no English word that correlates precisely with the meaning.

This is what I mean by "suffering":

Duḥkha (Sanskrit; Pali dukkha) is a term found in ancient Indian literature, meaning anything that is "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing pain or sadness".[9][10] It is also a concept in Indian religions about the nature of life that innately includes the "unpleasant", "suffering", "pain", "sorrow", "distress", "grief" or "misery."[9][10] The term duḥkha does not have a one-word English translation, and embodies diverse aspects of unpleasant human experiences.[3][10] It is opposed to the word sukha, meaning "happiness," "comfort" or "ease."[11]

Duḥkha - Wikipedia
​

Spoiler: Hindu Understanding of Duhkha (Suffering)

In Hindu literature, the earliest Upaniṣads — the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya — in all likelihood predate the advent of Buddhism.[note 3] In these scriptures of Hinduism, the Sanskrit word duḥkha (दुःख) appears in the sense of "suffering, sorrow, distress", and in the context of a spiritual pursuit and liberation through the knowledge of Atman (soul/self).[7][8][26]

Duḥkha - Wikipedia

 

[SalixIncendium]

Attachments to what we want life to be and not what it is I think.

Some attachments make me happy, like my grandkids. Some desires which can be fulfilled, like drinking beer, binge-watching the latest on-line series etc... make me happy.

Not all desires/attachments cause suffering. Just the ones we can't have and can't let go of.

What if these were taken away from you?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If someone had not attachments or desires and accidentally stubbed his or her toe, then would he or she experience suffering?

S/he would experience pain. His/her reaction to that pain may or may not cause suffering.

 

[Martin]

Most mistakes or indiscretions that I'm aware of are a product of desire or attachment. Can you think of any that are not?

For me they were basically the result of ignorance, at various levels.

 

[ChristineM]

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "suffering," and as @Secret Chief already mentioned, the concept that I'm speaking of is duhkha, a Sanskrit word for which there is no English word that correlates precisely with the meaning.

This is what I mean by "suffering":

Duḥkha (Sanskrit; Pali dukkha) is a term found in ancient Indian literature, meaning anything that is "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing pain or sadness".[9][10] It is also a concept in Indian religions about the nature of life that innately includes the "unpleasant", "suffering", "pain", "sorrow", "distress", "grief" or "misery."[9][10] The term duḥkha does not have a one-word English translation, and embodies diverse aspects of unpleasant human experiences.[3][10] It is opposed to the word sukha, meaning "happiness," "comfort" or "ease."[11]

Duḥkha - Wikipedia
​

Spoiler: Hindu Understanding of Duhkha (Suffering)

In Hindu literature, the earliest Upaniṣads — the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya — in all likelihood predate the advent of Buddhism.[note 3] In these scriptures of Hinduism, the Sanskrit word duḥkha (दुःख) appears in the sense of "suffering, sorrow, distress", and in the context of a spiritual pursuit and liberation through the knowledge of Atman (soul/self).[7][8][26]

Duḥkha - Wikipedia

Quite possibly but find real life constant agony is far more suffering than simply unpleasantness snd discomfort but it does include a lot of misery.

The OP asked for my view, i gave my view

 

[Peter Griffin]

Could it be that suffering results from not understanding our purpose? I don't believe that God enjoys in anyone's suffering, I do believe that we have the freedom to speed, drink too much, decide to spend extra time at the office chatting with a co-worker of the opposite sex or communicate without thinking. There are endless possibilities of what we do, because we lack understanding of our purpose. If the people of the world decided tomorrow to to elect officials that are caring and have humility and kindness and if each one of us decided to be grateful and love what we have and be kind to the planet, each other, ourselves and all the animals, would suffering go away? Even if you lost a family member, you know that while they were alive, you and them had a wonderful relationship and shared many kind moments together, wouldn't you feel less suffering on their passing? If we take care of ourselves and eat correctly, doesn't that ultimately result in less suffering?