Others' suffering = our own?

[DT Strain]

...I don't think the Buddha considered suffering unreal. He said life is suffering, starting with the trauma of being born. Certainly the trauma of giving birth is real...

This, and the subsequent posts that responded to it, are a good example of how people become confused by the notion of 'unreal' and 'real' in Buddhism. Hence, we have in the last few posts an irrelevant debate over whether suffering is real or not.

Some people mistakenly think that Buddhism suggests that the world is not real, but rather some sort of delusion (like 'The Matrix') and reality is in some supernatural or transcendent hidden realm. From what I have read, this is not the case at all. Rather, Buddhism is about living in this world.

When we look at a table, for instance, we recognize through Buddhist teachings (and other evidence from science as well) that in reality the table is a label we have given a certain collection of interdependent parts. It is in that sense that we recognize the table is just a pattern, not too much unlike a pattern that is formed by the transitory arrangement of people standing in a room at any given moment. We could give that pattern a name but we wouldn't really think of it as a distinct thing because it's transitory nature as a simple pattern of relationships among components is obvious to us. Buddhism seeks to help us recognize the same truth about the table and everything in the universe on that same intuitive 'automatic' level. So, it doesn't mean the table isn't real in the sense that it is some form of illusion. Rather, it means that the nature of the table is not what it would seem to the uninformed perception. The same applies to life, ourselves, our egos, and yes - to our suffering.

So, to think this means suffering 'isn't real' and then seek to debate that it is, would be the same as to argue that the table is real - in fact, Buddhism says both are real, and yet we harbor delusions about the true nature of both - they are not what we think they are. When we recognize this and absorb it on an intuitive level (or "grock" it to use a Heinlein term), then we glipse true reality, and many of the fruits of Buddhist teaching and practice follow.

I'm no expert by any stretch, but it seems to me this is the case according to what little I've learned. More input is always welcome

-Daniel

 

[Zenda71]

This, and the subsequent posts that responded to it, are a good example of how people become confused by the notion of 'unreal' and 'real' in Buddhism. Hence, we have in the last few posts an irrelevant debate over whether suffering is real or not.

Some people mistakenly think that Buddhism suggests that the world is not real, but rather some sort of delusion (like 'The Matrix') and reality is in some supernatural or transcendent hidden realm. From what I have read, this is not the case at all. Rather, Buddhism is about living in this world.

When we look at a table, for instance, we recognize through Buddhist teachings (and other evidence from science as well) that in reality the table is a label we have given a certain collection of interdependent parts. It is in that sense that we recognize the table is just a pattern, not too much unlike a pattern that is formed by the transitory arrangement of people standing in a room at any given moment. We could give that pattern a name but we wouldn't really think of it as a distinct thing because it's transitory nature as a simple pattern of relationships among components is obvious to us. Buddhism seeks to help us recognize the same truth about the table and everything in the universe on that same intuitive 'automatic' level. So, it doesn't mean the table isn't real in the sense that it is some form of illusion. Rather, it means that the nature of the table is not what it would seem to the uninformed perception. The same applies to life, ourselves, our egos, and yes - to our suffering.

So, to think this means suffering 'isn't real' and then seek to debate that it is, would be the same as to argue that the table is real - in fact, Buddhism says both are real, and yet we harbor delusions about the true nature of both - they are not what we think they are. When we recognize this and absorb it on an intuitive level (or "grock" it to use a Heinlein term), then we glipse true reality, and many of the fruits of Buddhist teaching and practice follow.

I'm no expert by any stretch, but it seems to me this is the case according to what little I've learned. More input is always welcome

-Daniel

Talk about impermanence! I had a whole long reply to your comment and it disappeared into cyberspace.

Since I don't have time to type the whole thing again, I'll summarize. I think it's very important to investigate what suffering means. If you don't know what it is, if you don't have a realization of what you have posted above, then what is the point? Buddhism isn't just about replacing our current ideas with more sophisticated ones, right? So, I think that looking at what is real, unreal, suffering, and not suffering is not only useful, but essentially our path. We must know the cause of suffering so that we can overcome it.

Do you know anything about madyamika? It deals with precisely the issue you mention about our mistake of defining things as real, unreal, neither, or both. From my understanding, the "suchness" of things is devoid of these four extremes.

So, in my very limited understanding, suffering may lack inherent existence and arise as a result of cause and condition, but it still functions as suffering (for now). Just because the table is empty of inherent existence doesn't mean that it doesn't function in a relative sense like a table. It's ultimate nature of course is another matter. Suffering is the same, I think.

If this doesn't make sense or is confusing, please ignore it.

 

[Netti-Netti]

For me, suffering is wanting things to be other than they are. That's it. Everything else is a variation on that theme.

I can see how that might be related to attachment to an idea of how things should be.

I've suggested that the body is a source of suffering. There are many, many medical conditions that cause suffering. Maybe you're looking for more psychological content. I see where the following might be variations on the "wanting things to be different" theme.

1) longing for deceased/inaccessible friends and family

2) anticipatory grief about losses that have not yet occurred

3) anticipatory grief about failures that have not yet occurred

4) anticipatory grief about threats to one's self esteem that have not yet occurred

5) anticipatory grief about the limits of satisfaction that can be expected from certain sensory or mentalistic experiences

6) wishing someone happiness and not being able to help

7) lost opportunities to provide another person with enjoyment and uplift

8) the ambiguity of language and not being understood or not being able to understand another person

9) attachment to ideal self (neopsychoanalytics like Karen Horney say this is the most important inner conflict because it creates an "inner rift," irrational perfectionism, denial and externalization, all of which tend to create problems)

10) half-heartedness and unwillingness to allow oneself to experience genuine contrition

11) feeling a need for self-justification

12) fear of backsliding or regressing to egoic modalities

13) disappointment and remorse arising from backsliding or regressing

14) frustration with lack of time and scheduling conflicts

15) underestimating time and resources required to complete projects

16) uncontrollable environment (e.g., daily hassles, noise pollution,
unpredictable events, & other external distractions)

17) depending on others for anything

18) lack of cooperation (stonewalling or passive aggressive strategies)

19) impatience

20) self pity


These are just a few that come to mind. Pretty normal, I think.

In some Buddhist texts, I have seen long lists of unwholesome emotions that would be uncomfortable for most of us.

 

[Zenda71]

That's a pretty extensive list! Thanks Netti...

I can see how that might be related to attachment to an idea of how things should be.

I've suggested that the body is a source of suffering. There are many, many medical conditions that cause suffering. Maybe you're looking for more psychological content. I see where the following might be variations on the "wanting things to be different" theme.

1) longing for deceased/inaccessible friends and family

2) anticipatory grief about losses that have not yet occurred

3) anticipatory grief about failures that have not yet occurred

4) anticipatory grief about threats to one's self esteem that have not yet occurred

5) anticipatory grief about the limits of satisfaction that can be expected from certain sensory or mentalistic experiences

6) wishing someone happiness and not being able to help

7) lost opportunities to provide another person with enjoyment and uplift

8) the ambiguity of language and not being understood or not being able to understand another person

9) attachment to ideal self (neopsychoanalytics like Karen Horney say this is the most important inner conflict because it creates an "inner rift," irrational perfectionism, denial and externalization, all of which tend to create problems)

10) half-heartedness and unwillingness to allow oneself to experience genuine contrition

11) feeling a need for self-justification

12) fear of backsliding or regressing to egoic modalities

13) disappointment and remorse arising from backsliding or regressing

14) frustration with lack of time and scheduling conflicts

15) underestimating time and resources required to complete projects

16) uncontrollable environment (e.g., daily hassles, noise pollution,
unpredictable events, & other external distractions)

17) depending on others for anything

18) lack of cooperation (stonewalling or passive aggressive strategies)

19) impatience

20) self pity


These are just a few that come to mind. Pretty normal, I think.

In some Buddhist texts, I have seen long lists of unwholesome emotions that would be uncomfortable for most of us.

 

[Netti-Netti]

That's a pretty extensive list! Thanks Netti...

It's an incomplete list.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Yes, unattainable limited list. Incomplete, if you wish. But it's the most cert habit of all the western-world inhabitants - to complete ideas. Am I not right?

Maybe the list's not full, but should it be?! We can't give 'completations' to everything in the world. There exist things much wider than our mind. Doesn't it?

In Russia, people usually say in this situations: "Make a fool prey to God, he'll necessarely break his nose (onto the floor)!" And so our scientists - the Medieval sophists've tought them to describe every pimple (if I remember the word correct) on their noses, so they do... even isn't needed.

Your list is perfect. I'd never write so exactly in life. And the best is that after all it gives a common sense, an 'under-skin' logic.

 

[seattlegal]

Yes, unattainable limited list. Incomplete, if you wish. But it's the most cert habit of all the western-world inhabitants - to complete ideas. Am I not right?

Not necessarily. It's an individual thing, rather than a cultural thing, imo.

Maybe the list's not full, but should it be?! We can't give 'completations' to everything in the world. There exist things much wider than our mind. Doesn't it?

Agreed. Legalists will try to make an end-run around any list/law considered 'complete,' looking for a loophole, rather than to honor the 'spirit of the law.'

In Russia, people usually say in this situations: "Make a fool prey to God, he'll necessarely break his nose (onto the floor)!" And so our scientists - the Medieval sophists've tought them to describe every pimple (if I remember the word correct) on their noses, so they do... even isn't needed.

Your list is perfect. I'd never write so exactly in life. And the best is that after all it gives a common sense, an 'under-skin' logic.

That's a good way to put it.

{Oh, btw, welcome to IO, Dharmaatmaa. }

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

"It's an individual thing, rather than a cultural thing, imo." said Seattlegal. There is two 'hands' in this case. In one hand, I think it's individually. Yes, but if we look from another side, or hand (as it seems to be usually said), it's hardly agreed.

I'm aware we speak the same language with you, Seattlegal. If I'm not mistaken that is namely western psychology to talk about a collective mind, or archetypes. Every human being cannot live among other people, not being 'vorticed' or 'charmed' with its culture and modus vivendi, can he? For ex, how people live on the Orient is just disgusting for Europeans. Have you ever read a book of famous Russian ethnographist Madame Helena P. Blavatsky "(Letters) From Hindosthan". She describes everyday life of Hindus. And ther appear things to be awful even for my half-oriental mind! For ex, to kiss a cow's tail for gods' gifts.
This example is rude, I know. But one can see a great analogy here! Culture's owr second mother. You feel it yourself, when write that lawyers do complete every word, every world I would say! Although juridical relations demand it. Lawyers aren't guilty.

 

[DrumR]

I think I understand how the lessons of no-self, mindfulness, and meditation can lead to a relief of our own suffering, and also make us more compassionate because we then have room to be more in tune with the suffering of others.

However, once we become more perceptive to the suffering of others, how do we keep from experiencing suffering ourselves, out of an empathetic feeling for them?
-Daniel

Could the answer to your question be as simple as avoiding that attachment to the pain and suffering of others?

In your initial statement concerning "no-self" I am led to wonder if this concept includes (or has the attachment of) "all self"?

I am further moved to query how one would apply un-attachment to compassion? For I would argue that the two appear somewhat mutually exclusive. Then again, to act in a manner that may be described as compassionate does not necessarily imply that there is an attachment.

Could not living one's life in a fashion that does not further burden other's lives also be viewed as compassionate?

Yet you had asked the original question in the first place and it would be counter productive of me not to offer up the following line of reasoning (?)

By not inflicting pain and suffering to the world and its inhabitants one reduces the pain and suffering of the world by one life. Presenting no problems to the world desirous of solution one reduces that burden upon the world. By one being at peace with the world there is less tension in the world and the base of strife is lessened by one. In such a manner one contributes to the "greater good."

Encourage and teach others to do the same in a non-intrusive manner and the philosophy may gain in numbers. As the numbers of those who follow this path increase, they contribute to the overall reduction of the pain and suffering of the world by each life that follows.

The trick of this is to propagate these types of philosophies at a rate that is greater than the world's birth rate. Problematic, yes?