Others' suffering = our own?

Zenda71 said:
The thing about suffering being an illusion is that saying it's illusion doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to hurt, it means that it doesn't inherently exist. "Empty yet appearing" is the phrase I've heard most. So, the ear twisting is empty, so you can't say it actually exists, but it appears so it still hurts. (Of course, I guess, if one takes the view of "this ear pain is not what it appears," it may change a bit from "ouch" to something else... )
Click to expand...
Perhaps a better understanding of "inherently" might be in order here:

from dictionary.com
in·her·ent
–adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
2. Grammar. standing before a noun.
3. inhering; infixed.​
In other words, suffering is not permanent, is subject to change, and can be ended. The way to the ending of suffering is what the Buddha taught. {I find this somewhat analogous to the Christian concept of hope.}
 
seattlegal said:
....suffering is not permanent, is subject to change, and can be ended. The way to the ending of suffering is what the Buddha taught.
Click to expand...
It is unclear whether suffering can be ended in any absolute sense, and I'm not sure whether the Buddha claimed this as a practical possibility.

Some Buddhists contend that one can learn to accept it and manage it without any expectation of actually ending it. This seems more realistic.
 
Zenda71 said:
What does suffering mean to you?
Click to expand...
For starters, suffering means having a body.

And what to you mean by "in any absolute sense?"
Click to expand...
Some renderings of Buddhism claim that a complete cessation of suffering can be achieved (in this life). I believe this is unrealistic.

Even if I am able to overcome the primary and secondary emotional/mental afflictions, I will experience the suffering associated with this form of existence as long as I have a body.
 
Netti-Netti said:
For starters, suffering means having a body.

Some renderings of Buddhism claim that a complete cessation of suffering can be achieved (in this life). I believe this is unrealistic.

Even if I am able to overcome the primary and secondary emotional/mental afflictions, I will experience the suffering associated with this form of existence as long as I have a body.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. I think there's no doubt that having a body is a challenge... it gets old and decays, sometimes pretty painfully. In my view, there is a difference between suffering and pain. Pain is pretty much unavoidable but suffering, which I think of as the conceptual overlay we put on our pain, is avoidable. So, for me, body is not a problem because although there can be pain associated with having a body, suffering is optional.

Does this help? Of course, it's just my experience...
 
Zenda71 said:
Pain is pretty much unavoidable but suffering, which I think of as the conceptual overlay we put on our pain, is avoidable.
Click to expand...
Hi Z,

What are some of elements of the overlay you're referring to?
 
Netti-Netti said:
Hi Z,

What are some of elements of the overlay you're referring to?
Click to expand...

If we have a headache, there is pain. But there is also the pain of worrying about it. Such as "Wow, this headache is really bad. I wonder if aspirin will help? Maybe it won't go away. Or maybe it's a brain tumor." That kind of thing. I mean the story we tell ourselves about the pain.

Does that make sense?
 
Zenda71 said:
If we have a headache, there is pain. But there is also the pain of worrying about it. Such as "Wow, this headache is really bad. I wonder if aspirin will help? Maybe it won't go away. Or maybe it's a brain tumor." That kind of thing. I mean the story we tell ourselves about the pain.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Yes, makes sense.

To get back to your previous post:

I think there's no doubt that having a body is a challenge... it gets old and decays, sometimes pretty painfully. In my view, there is a difference between suffering and pain. Pain is pretty much unavoidable but suffering, which I think of as the conceptual overlay we put on our pain, is avoidable. So, for me, body is not a problem because although there can be pain associated with having a body, suffering is optional.
Click to expand...
In some cases it's optional. In other cases it isn't.

There are all kinds of problems that limit the person from the get go. Someone once remarked that developmentally disabled people might not be as smart as you, but they're smart enough to know they're miserable. People with developmental disorders who are not mentally limited certainly know it.

Another problem with having a body is that it can be injured or permanently disabled by disease. The resulting impairments or disfigurements can lead to significant social isolation and/or diminished functioning, which in turn can greatly alter the range of personal satisfactions a person has available them. This is evident even with minor injuries. More severe ailments that require intensive and ongoing care would tend to be more restricting and frustrating.

The distinction between physical pain and psychological suffering is often artificial because one implies the other. The distinction is perhaps all the more artificial in the case of chronic mental/emotional disorders, which commonly have subjective distress as part of a disabling symptom complex.

Further, I think it is unrealistic to think that one can "rise above" developmental disorders and permanent disabilities by exercising mental discipline. A person who can no longer talk because of a stroke will not get their ability back by being mindful about how their aversions/attachments are influencing their conduct and emotions.

If we have a headache, there is pain. But there is also the pain of worrying about it. Such as "Wow, this headache is really bad. I wonder if aspirin will help? Maybe it won't go away.
Click to expand...
Chances are it will go away. That is not the case for permanent disabilities and chronic pain. Diminished quality of life may be especially hard to adjust to, especially in instances where restoring lost function and any kind of real symptom relief will never be an option.

It's certainly fair to say that in many cases you can rewrite your intrapsychic script and adjust your preferences and expectations and thereby reduce the frustrations to at least some degree. And you can keep your worrying in check based on a realistic understanding that the pain will dissipitate on its own. But again, that's not always the case.

I'm all for mind over matter. But modifying the conceptual overlay may have limited value in modifying the overall scenario for many medical conditions. The distinction you made in your previous post between physical pain and psychological suffering may indeed by very artificial in those cases because one implies the other.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Yes, makes sense.

To get back to your previous post:

In some cases it's optional. In other cases it isn't.

There are all kinds of problems that limit the person from the get go. Someone once remarked that developmentally disabled people maybe not be as smart as you, but they're smart enough to know they're miserable. People with developmental disorders who are not mentally limited certainly know it.

Another problem with having a body is that it can be injured or permanently disabled by disease. The resulting impairments or disfigurements can lead to significant social isolation and/or diminished functioning, which in turn can greatly alter the range of personal satisfactions a person has available them. This is evident even with minor injuries. More severe ailments that require intensive and ongoing care would tend to be more restricting.

The distinction between physical pain and psychological suffering is often artificial because one implies the other. The distinction is perhaps all the more artificial in the case of chronic mental/emotional disorders, which commonly have subjective distress as part of a disabling symptom complex.

Further, I think it is unrealistic to think that one can "rise above" developmental disorders and permanent disabilities by exercising mental discipline. A person who can no longer talk because of a stroke will not get their ability back by being mindful about how their aversions/attachments are influencing their conduct and emotions.

Chances are it will go away. That is not the case for permanent disabilities and chronic pain. Diminished quality of life may be especially hard to adjust to, especially in instances where restoring lost function and any kind of real symptom relief will never be an option.

It's certainly fair to say that in many cases you can rewrite your intrapsychic script and adjust your preferences and expectations and thereby reduce the frustrations to at least some degree. And you can keep your worrying in check based on a realistic understanding that the pain will dissipitate on its own. But again, that's not always the case.

I'm all for mind over matter. But modifying the conceptual overlay may have limited value in modifying the overall scenario for many medical conditions. The distinction you made in your previous post between physical pain and psychological suffering may indeed by very artificial in those cases because one implies the other.
Click to expand...

These are great points. Thanks for raising them. From experience, I've seen that some people with chronic physical disabilities suffer greatly psychologically while others do not. But really, suffering is such an individual thing and we know so little about the process of pain, although we're learning more all the time. Look at pain thresholds. Some people experience agony with relatively minor wounds whereas others can undergo major procedures without pain relief. Some people with chronic physical conditions do not experience the same mental anguish that some non-physically-challenged people do. What is the difference? Is it chemical? Is it psychological? Or both? So, I'm not sure if the differentiation between psychological and physical pain is so artificial... one clearly influences the other. Perhaps it would be better to say that they are connected?

I don't have the answers, but I think that contemplating suffering and the definition of suffering is a really useful way to figure out how to work with it and, if possible, to see if it can be overcome.
 
Zenda71 said:
I think that contemplating suffering and the definition of suffering is a really useful way to figure out how to work with it and, if possible, to see if it can be overcome.
Click to expand...

Depending on which translation you read, the Buddha's earliest Sutta speaks of "stress" or "suffering." In recent academic psychology stress has been defined as an individual response. That's very unsatisfying because it is so general. But based on a consideration of individual differences, like you've pointed out, it's probably reasonably accurate.

The thing that seems to be common to stress reactions, though, is the sense that the demands of the situations exceed one's abilities to cope. This is often a purely cognitive phenomena that has little or nothing to do with a person's actual functional/adaptive skills.

Don't know if that adds some direction here.............
 
That's really interesting, Netti. Thanks so much!

Netti-Netti said:
Depending on which translation you read, the Buddha's earliest Sutta speaks of "stress" or "suffering." In recent academic psychology stress has been defined as an individual response. That's very unsatisfying because it is so general. But based on a consideration of individual differences, like you've pointed out, it's probably reasonably accurate.

The thing that seems to be common to stress reactions, though, is the sense that the demands of the situations exceed one's abilities to cope. This is often a purely cognitive phenomena that has little or nothing to do with a person's actual functional/adaptive skills.

Don't know if that adds some direction here.............
Click to expand...
 
Hi again.

I was thinking about the traditional Tibetan Buddhist view of suffering on my drive into work. Unfortunately, I don't have the exact quote I was thinking of, but thanks to Google, information is always near at hand. :)

Anyway, here's to continued discussion...

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/4_noble_truths.html said:
1. THIS IS SUFFERING

According to the Buddha, whatever life we lead, it has the nature of some aspect of suffering. Even if we consider ourselves happy for a while, this happiness is transitory by nature. This mean that at best, we can only find temporary happiness and pleasure in life.
Suffering (or unsatisfactoriness) can be distinguished in three types:
1. Suffering of suffering: this refers to the most obvious aspects like pain, fear and mental distress.
2. Suffering of change: refers to the problems that change brings, like joy disappears, nothing stays, decay and death.
3. All-pervasive suffering: this is the most difficult to understand aspect, it refers to the fact that we always have the potential to suffer or can get into problematic situations. Even death is not a solution in Buddhist philosophy, as we will simply find ourselves being reborn in a different body, which will also experience problems.
To illustrate this with the words of the 7th Dalai Lama (from 'Songs of spiritual change' translated by Glenn Mullin:
"Hundreds of stupid flies gather
On a piece of rotten meat,
Enjoying, they think, a delicious feast.
This image fits with the song
Of the myriads of foolish living beings
Who seek happiness in superficial pleasures;
In countless ways they try,
Yet I have never seen them satisfied."
​
Note that "suffering" is an inadequate translation of the word "Dukkha", but it is the one most commonly found, lacking a better word in English. "Dukkha" means "intolerable", "unsustainable", "difficult to endure", and can also mean "imperfect", "unsatisfying", or "incapable of providing perfect happiness". Interestingly enough, some people actually translate it as "stress".
"Suffering is a big word in Buddhist thought. It is a key term and it should be thoroughly understood. The Pali word is dukkha, and it does not just mean the agony of the body. It means that deep subtle sense of unsatisfactoriness which is a part of every mind moment and which results directly from the mental treadmill. The essence of life is suffering, said the Buddha. At first glance this seems exceedingly morbid and pessimistic. It even seems untrue. After all, there are plenty of times when we are happy. Aren't there. No, there are not. It just seems that way. Take any moment when you feel really fulfilled and examine it closely. Down under the joy, you will find that subtle, all-pervasive undercurrent of tension, that no matter how great this moment is, it is going to end. No matter how much you just gained, you are either going to lose some of it or spend the rest of your days guarding what you have got and scheming how to get more. And in the end, you are going to die. In the end, you lose everything. It is all transitory."
Henepola Gunaratana, from 'Mindfulness in Plain English'. ​
Click to expand...

​
 
Note that "suffering" is an inadequate translation of the word "Dukkha", but it is the one most commonly found, lacking a better word in English. "Dukkha" means "intolerable", "unsustainable", "difficult to endure", and can also mean "imperfect", "unsatisfying", or "incapable of providing perfect happiness". Interestingly enough, some people actually translate it as "stress".
​
Etymology?
 
Zenda71 said:
Are you asking me what about the etymology of the word?
Click to expand...
Yes. My thought was if you go back to the most basic form, you have a better sense for the original meaning.

My hunch is more contemporary understandings of Dukkha are a ways removed from the original.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Yes. My thought was if you go back to the most basic form, you have a better sense for the original meaning.

My hunch is more contemporary understandings of Dukkha are a ways removed from the original.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's true. My teacher talks about suffering in the very classic way mentioned on this site... the suffering of change, the suffering of suffering, etc. He talks about it being this sense of things being "not quite right" or dissatifactory. Another way I've heard it taught is a feeling of "unease." In the Shambhala teachings, they talk about this being the result of trying to shore our sense of self up so we don't feel so groundless.

Again though I think it's really useful to look at what suffering means in our own experience. It's funny how words change over time the more we contemplate them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top