The Great Lie.

[Kathryn]

Let me reiterate. I believe that suffering can be eliminated entirely, eventually.

I suppose I was tasked with this knowledge in a vision. A mystical experience. Perhaps it's just a idealistic hunch. Perhaps, even if impossible, the elimination of suffering is the most noble goal. So even if not possible, working towards it anyways is a must. But if people believe in the inevitability of suffering, they will for sure forever suffer.

Like I said, you need to get rid of death then, because the vast majority of people will suffer the loss of loved ones and will miss them for a long time.

I have lost my inlaws, my dad, my mom, my younger brother, and my husband, and will probably lose more people. I miss them so much sometimes! You are a lot younger than I am (I am 62). I don't go around sobbing or like I said, even missing any of them every second of every day, but sometimes I just do miss them. I think I am healthy emotionally, but even so...you need to get rid of death before you talk about getting rid of suffering.

 

[an anarchist]

Like I said, you need to get rid of death then, because the vast majority of people will suffer the loss of loved ones and will miss them for a long time.

Indeed. I commented on the physicality of suffering earlier in the thread.

Indeed, even a vegan causes plants to suffer. But yet I posit the goal as "the elimination of suffering" and not the "elimination of human suffering". I suppose that the conclusion of suffering would require a transcendental event. Something we are currently not capable of, at least on a mass scale. To overcome the physicality of suffering is something that I think more enlightened future generations will have to address. But we are far from that point. There is so much work to do to eliminate suffering that doesn't even factor in that we suffer because we are physical and we exist. Like, we can stop having wars through force of collective will, and that would do wonders in reducing suffering. Conscious actions and decisions can be made to reduce suffering, and as we evolve and become more enlightened as a species, the way to overcome the physicality of suffering will become clear I hope.

 

[Ajax]

Let me reiterate. I believe that suffering can be eliminated entirely, eventually.

I suppose I was tasked with this knowledge in a vision. A mystical experience. Perhaps it's just a idealistic hunch. Perhaps, even if impossible, the elimination of suffering is the most noble goal. So even if not possible, working towards it anyways is a must. But if people believe in the inevitability of suffering, they will for sure forever suffer.

Perhaps for robots if/when they will run earth, but not for humans, never. Unless your aim is to point to the afterlife of various religions.

 

[InChrist]

Suffering is inevitable

Above is The Great Lie.

At its core, my mission in life is to leave behind a philosophy that argues against this mindset.

I think since all we have known or been aware of throughout human history is the reality of suffering, then even the fact that you are bringing up or imagining an alternative reality or life without suffering…reveals God and that humanity is created in God’s image. We intuitively know there’s something wrong with suffering, there’s something different possible.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Kathryn]

My goodness, we are humans and therefore we are imperfect! Since we are imperfect, we will do things like stub our toes, trip or fall, or any number of little things like that. If we supposedly don't have any suffering, every little misstep will be catastrophic to our pysche.

Now, I don't believe there will be any suffering in heaven, but we will be perfect then, and living in a perfect world. That's my belief, anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is so much work to do in order to eliminate suffering that doesn't factor in the physical nature of suffering. Much we can do presently to reduce suffering.

I fully agree. That is a big part of the Baha'i Faith, to help a suffering humanity.

 

[Kathryn]

You know what happened to me one time? I tripped over my elderly dog, and broke my right elbow (dominant one) so badly that they had to replace the entire elbow joint with titanium. Boy did I ever suffer, and this was WITH pain pills. Actually I am still suffering. Every single day of my life, every single minute of my life in fact, my arm hurts. I mean, I am pretty used to it but it was nothing but an accident. Is someone proposing that we can do away with human accidents?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Your pedantry accusation is ironic given the questions you asked about this parable.

What do you find pedantic about the questions I asked?
I’m sorry if my critique of your parable offends you, but it begs those questions and more.
Isn’t a parable supposed to simplify or clarify a concept?

Yours, in my opinion does neither.
I find it to be a distraction from what I think you’re trying to say.

I’ll be happy to answer questions regarding the parable and how it relates to pain and suffering for anyone who wishes to better understand it, but I won’t engage someone who is simply interested in ignoring the lesson wholesale and introducing “problems” by asking sophomoric questions intended to discredit it.

Of course you understand that different people interpret things differently, but….
I don’t believe I “introduced problems” by asking the obvious questions the parable itself begs;
The parable has those “problems” built into it, which is why I offered my criticism of it.
I don’t find it in any way simplifies or clarifies what I think might be your point.
Instead, I think it distracts from it.

I’m appreciative when someone points out better ways to express my message or method of engagement.
I was merely attempting to reciprocate that courtesy.

Based on your comments surrounding your parable, I’m under the impression that in your interpretation, “pain” is a physical sensation (possibly mental?) and that “suffering” is the act of over focusing on “pain”….
Would that be close?

If the parable has no value to you and you’re not here to learn, move on.

I find that asking questions in order to clarify concepts to be a better way to actually learn, than assuming to understand…..
Particularly when the concept is lacking logic.

So once again I’m sorry if my critique offends you, but perhaps we can put the parable to the side and try another way.

Is my interpretation of your point I outlined above vaguely what your position is?

 

[Trailblazer]

You know what happened to me one time? I tripped over my elderly dog, and broke my right elbow (dominant one) so badly that they had to replace the entire elbow joint with titanium. Boy did I ever suffer, and this was WITH pain pills. Actually I am still suffering. Every single day of my life, every single minute of my life in fact, my arm hurts. I mean, I am pretty used to it but it was nothing but an accident. Is someone proposing that we can do away with human accidents?

No, we cannot do away with human accidents, all we can do is our best to avoid them. In 2005 I got hit by a car going 55 mph while riding my bike to work. I got injured when I was thrown off my bike. Fortunately the T11 fracture in my back healed completely, but where I landed on my bottom is a big hematoma that never healed. It really bothered me for years but it doesn't hurt that much anymore.

"Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will."
Some Answered Questions, p. 248

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it is talking about 1) Christ taking on the sins of the world, dying, and then rising again (it lists for instance, many who saw Him). Then it talks of 2) burying "seed" which is of course our bodies, and them being raised again after death and being glorified and "heavenized." It talks about all sorts of seeds and raising them as well. Then it talks about being victorious over death and the VERY FEW people who are alive at the time of the last trumpet blowing perhaps not actually dying. Finally, it says to believers to stand firm and do not let anything move us or you or whatever because we know that our labor is not in vain.

What do you think it's saying in a nutshell?

I could try to interpret that chapter myself but I think this article explains it a lot better than I can.

Won’t the Dead Rise Again?

 

[Kathryn]

So due to human accidents, there will be some suffering. Accidents like sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes, that sort of thing. Sounds like a lot of suffering to me but what do I know.

 

[Trailblazer]

So due to human accidents, there will be some suffering. Accidents like sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes, that sort of thing. Sounds like a lot of suffering to me but what do I know.

Yes, it is a lot of suffering. God created the world like this so we know who we can blame.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now, I don't believe there will be any suffering in heaven, but we will be perfect then, and living in a perfect world. That's my belief, anyway.

I don't know if we will be perfect in heaven, but I believe there will be no more suffering in heaven, only joy and gladness.

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you find pedantic about the questions I asked?

The literalism in which you present the arrows, which are intended to be metaphorical representations of pain and suffering, which is what we are discussing. You chose to add and remove arrows, when the premise of the parable was based on two arrows. Not one. Not three.

I’m sorry if my critique of your parable offends you, but it begs those questions and more.

First, I don't get offended. I've given no one, you included, that power over me.

And yes, it does beg questions, but as it relates to pain and suffering, not quibbling about how many arrows and the degree of damage they inflict. I'm confident some of the questions would be answered in the subsequent paragraph which you chose to overlook.

Isn’t a parable supposed to simplify or clarify a concept?

Certainly.

Yours, in my opinion does neither.

And you're entitled to the opinion.

I find it to be a distraction from what I think you’re trying to say.

I'm not trying to say anything. I said what I intended to say. Maybe instead of just quoting the parable and trying to rip it to shreds, you should have included the paragraph immediately below it which sums up the moral of the parable.

Of course you understand that different people interpret things differently, but….
I don’t believe I “introduced problems” by asking the obvious questions the parable itself begs;
The parable has those “problems” built into it, which is why I offered my criticism of it.

Why did you feel the need to offer criticism? That's an ongoing problem with some members here, atheists and theists alike. Their default is to criticize and not learn. And yes, you introduced problems when you chose to pick apart the parable without understanding the moral.

I don’t find it in any way simplifies or clarifies what I think might be your point.
Instead, I think it distracts from it.

What do you think my point was?

I’m appreciative when someone points out better ways to express my message or method of engagement.
I was merely attempting to reciprocate that courtesy.

Based on your comments surrounding your parable, I’m under the impression that in your interpretation, “pain” is a physical sensation (possibly mental?) and that “suffering” is the act of over focusing on “pain”….
Would that be close?

That's a fair assessment. In my experience, people tend to attach themselves to physical and emotional pain and create their own suffering. I've done this myself earlier in life.

I'm in no way saying the pain isn't there. Pain in this life is an inevitability. It's the condition of living. But non-attachment to that pain eliminates suffering. I speak from direct experience.

I find that asking questions in order to clarify concepts to be a better way to actually learn, than assuming to understand…..
Particularly when the concept is lacking logic.

I agree wholeheartedly, but you disregarded the logic portion of my post and chose to criticize the parable instead.

So once again I’m sorry if my critique offends you, but perhaps we can put the parable to the side and try another way.

I accept the apology, but again, I wasn't offended. I appreciate the candor of this response. It's not a common behavior here. I hope more people read this and see how people can interact with one another with courtesy and respect. Thank you for that.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm in no way saying the pain isn't there. Pain in this life is an inevitability. It's the condition of living. But non-attachment to that pain eliminates suffering. I speak from direct experience.

Doesn’t this border on semantics?
Physical pain being a sensory input to alert the brain of possible injury.
The more intense that input the more attention and immediacy the brain will pay to it.
The more lingering that input the more one is motivated to discover a way to eliminate it and if possible prevent further occurrence.
Therefore pain and suffering (resulting from the pain) are intense motivating factors in learning.
Granted, the human mind, being as it is, has the capability of perceiving things which do not physically exist in reality and augmenting those things that do, with perceived features that they may in reality lack. In other words making more of it than there is.

And in these cases can “suffer” more than is necessary.
Would this be what you mean by “attachment to suffering”?

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t cases where the “suffering” is justified in reality.
Would acknowledging this sort of thing constitute “attachment to suffering” in your view?

Similarly, mental pain is tied to emotions to alert the brain of non-desirous circumstances.
Intensity and duration working similarly to it’s physical counterpart.

However, with this emotionally induced pain, there are no physical switches to indicate when the initial input has terminated.
This admittedly can lead to longer than “necessary” suffering although this is highly subjective.

And, just as with the physical variety, the emotional (mental) pains are intense motivating factors in learning to eliminate it and if possible prevent further occurrence.

So it seems to me the key is not to ignore either pain or subsequent “suffering” but to as best as possible moderate “augmented” influence and only as closely as possible adhere to the “justified” input.
Would you agree?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Would this be what you mean by “attachment to suffering”?

I'm sorry you wasted your time typing a post based on this premise, but I never said this.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sorry you wasted your time typing a post based on this premise, but I never said this.

Then please explain what you meant.

You said:
I'm in no way saying the pain isn't there. Pain in this life is an inevitability. It's the condition of living. But non-attachment to that pain eliminates suffering. I speak from direct experience.

If non-attachment to pain (whether it is physical, mental, or emotional) eliminates suffering, that would mean that it is the attachment to pain that causes suffering. Is this what you are saying?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm sorry you wasted your time typing a post based on this premise, but I never said this.

Forgive my attempt at summation.
This is why I put it in quotation marks.
I can see in rereading it, that may have come off as looking like a quote from you.

Allow me to more clearly phrase it.
Where I said;

And in these cases can “suffer” more than is necessary.
Would this be what you mean by “attachment to suffering”?

Read;….
“And in these cases can “suffer” more than necessary.
Would this be what you mean by — attachment to pain is suffering.”

And like wise wherever I wrote “attachment to suffering”….
Read; “attachment to pain being suffering”

These are things you said that give that impression……

It its simplest terms, it's a reaction to pain. As I mentioned in a previous post, it's a reaction that includes attachment to and focus on that pain.

I define pain as a sensation in the body brought about by illness or injury.

Pain is inevitable...suffering is optional.

I asked you if that was an approximation of your meaning here;

Based on your comments surrounding your parable, I’m under the impression that in your interpretation, “pain” is a physical sensation (possibly mental?) and that “suffering” is the act of over focusing on “pain”….
Would that be close?

To which you answered;…..

That's a fair assessment. In my experience, people tend to attach themselves to physical and emotional pain and create their own suffering. I've done this myself earlier in life.

I'm in no way saying the pain isn't there. Pain in this life is an inevitability. It's the condition of living. But non-attachment to that pain eliminates suffering. I speak from direct experience.

If this is not what you mean…
Perhaps you could help me understand what you mean, by clarifying it in some way?
Preferably without a parable open to interpretation, but rather in direct words.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then please explain what you meant.

You said:
I'm in no way saying the pain isn't there. Pain in this life is an inevitability. It's the condition of living. But non-attachment to that pain eliminates suffering. I speak from direct experience.

If non-attachment to pain (whether it is physical, mental, or emotional) eliminates suffering, that would mean that it is the attachment to pain that causes suffering. Is this what you are saying?

I am saying the attachment to pain is suffering.

 

[an anarchist]

I am saying the attachment to pain is suffering.

Physical pain and mortality... This huge obstacle when it comes to the elimination of suffering, seems to be at the forefront of this thread.

A sage who has learned to rise above pain is no simple man. A society or world full of such people will be able to see the way through the physicality of "reality". But we must first become a society of sage like individuals. Much can be done to eliminate suffering that we can do today, such as eliminating our attachment to pain.

I think I am beginning to understand what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying in the simplest of terms. It's clicking for me I think.