Buddhism on Attachments: What to Do in Life?

[Greg Bernhardt]

In buddhism are these statements true?

1. You shouldn't become too attached to external things that are ultimately temporal.
2. All happiness must come from within.

If these two are true, then what should you do in life? Sit and meditate? Family and friends should not be invested in?

 

[Astronuc]

In buddhism are these statements true?

1. You shouldn't become too attached to external things that are ultimately temporal.
2. All happiness must come from within.

If these two are true, then what should you do in life? Sit and meditate? Family and friends should not be invested in?

It's not so cut and dry. The first point is to overcome desire or craving, and part of that is not to attach oneself or one's desire/craving for material thing.

The second point is correct - happiness or misery does come within. Clearly happiness or contentment is a state of mind. Of course, human behavior/psychology is complex.

What should one do in life? How about - 'do the right thing'.

Meditation is a tool. The point of the 'Middle way' is not to focus on an extreme, which would be the case if one did nothing but 'sit and meditate'.

One should invest in family and friends. Afterall, humans are social creatures. But what does it mean to 'invest' in family and friends?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So if I happen to be interested in cars and driving I should not get a BMW because I'd suffer if the car got in a crash or a few months later I'd wish for a Ferrari?

 

[Astronuc]

So if I happen to be interested in cars and driving I should not get a BMW because I'd suffer if the car got in a crash or a few months later I'd wish for a Ferrari?

That would be one's decision/choice. One must decide for oneself.

With regard to attachment, the goal in this case would be not to get attached (or too attached) to the car.

Another part of Buddhist thought is not to be too extravagant.

I'd love to have a Porsche 917 K, but if I had that kind of money, I'd spend it on more important things. But then again, I'm not unhappy that I don't have one.

 

[LightbulbSun]

In the Four Noble Truths it states that "the cause of suffering is rooted in desire." I don't mean to extend this claim so much, but if I desire a hamburger, does that mean the cause of it is some form of suffering? I'm not sure that logic is completely sound.

You could say that yes I am suffering from hunger, but if I'm hungry I'll eat anything to satisfy my hunger. What I am desiring is a specification, and I don't think that's truly caused by some form of suffering. Individuality is a complex subject matter that I don't think hammering everything down to four absolute truths is giving us much insight.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Another part of Buddhist thought is not to be too extravagant.

That's a thought I don't understand. If there was a logical fallacy for this I'd name it "appealing to simplicity". It's like they're saying the following:

X is simple, Y is extravagant.
Therefore, X is true.

Obviously we can say the converse is also a logical fallacy. It falls under the same umbrella as "appealing to tradition/novelty."

 

[Seiryuu]

In buddhism are these statements true?

1. You shouldn't become too attached to external things that are ultimately temporal.
2. All happiness must come from within.

If these two are true, then what should you do in life? Sit and meditate? Family and friends should not be invested in?

Detachment doesn't mean that you shouldn't invest in family or friends. What it means is that you shouldn't rely on them or expect them to create your own happiness. Instead you should rather take your life into your own hands as you yourself are responsible for your own happiness, not the people around you.

As Astronuc pointed out, happiness is a state of mind, and therefore unrelated to the situations that you may find yourself in or to the people around you. Simply put, it is our own perception of a situation or another persons action that makes us feel the way we do. If we see the event as something negative, it will cause suffering. If we associate it with something positive it will cause bliss.

This is exactly why suffering is rooted in desire, because as long as one desires, there's a chance that you may be disappointed if you do not get what you want. As opposed to that, if you are free from desires, you will not expect anything from anyone or anything, so there's nothing that can cause suffering in the first place. You simply accept reality as it is without expectations, with eliminates a dualistic view of positive and negative or good and evil.

 

[LightbulbSun]

This is exactly why suffering is rooted in desire, because as long as one desires, there's a chance that you may be disappointed if you do not get what you want. As opposed to that, if you are free from desires, you will not expect anything from anyone or anything, so there's nothing that can cause suffering in the first place. You simply accept reality as it is without expectations, with eliminates a dualistic view of positive and negative or good and evil.

That's more like a nihilistic viewpoint.

 

[Astronuc]

That's a thought I don't understand. If there was a logical fallacy for this I'd name it "appealing to simplicity". It's like they're saying the following:

X is simple, Y is extravagant.
Therefore, X is true.

Obviously we can say the converse is also a logical fallacy. It falls under the same umbrella as "appealing to tradition/novelty."

There's no logical fallacy.

As simple example would be a choice between wearing simple cotton robe, or one that is gilded and studded with jewels. A Buddhist monk would select a cotton robe, or one that is simple, rather than the gilded one. It's something like the vow of poverty that some monastic orders take. In fact, avoiding overindulgence is a principle of the major religions.

In the western industrial nations, it would be a choice of a simple car, e.g. a Honda Civic (which gets 40 mpg), vs a Cadillac or Continental or Ferrari or Porsche or Corvette, . . . (which get 14-20 mpg). Interestingly, the US is materially more wealthy than any nation or empire in history, yet the happiness has not increased proportionally.

This is exactly why suffering is rooted in desire, because as long as one desires, there's a chance that you may be disappointed if you do not get what you want. As opposed to that, if you are free from desires, you will not expect anything from anyone or anything, so there's nothing that can cause suffering in the first place. You simply accept reality as it is without expectations, with eliminates a dualistic view of positive and negative or good and evil.

This is not nihilistic (based on 1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths).

It's simply a matter of overcoming desire or craving. With desire/craving, there are two possibilities: 1) one obtains/attains/achieves what one desires, yet one's craving is not satiated, and the craving for more, or 2) one does not obtain/attain/achieve what one desires, and one is left disappointed. So putting things in perspective and reducing or eliminating craving, one overcomes disappointment or unhappiness.

Hunger by the way is not suffering. It's simply a physiological function that indicates the need for nourishment. Starvation on the other hand is suffering - for most.

 

[LightbulbSun]

There's no logical fallacy.

As simple example would be a choice between wearing simple cotton robe, or one that is gilded and studded with jewels. A Buddhist monk would select a cotton robe, or one that is simple, rather than the gilded one. It's something like the vow of poverty that some monastic orders take. In fact, avoiding overindulgence is a principle of the major religions.

In the western industrial nations, it would be a choice of a simple car, e.g. a Honda Civic (which gets 40 mpg), vs a Cadillac or Continental or Ferrari or Porsche or Corvette, . . . (which get 14-20 mpg). Interestingly, the US is materially more wealthy than any nation or empire in history, yet the happiness has not increased proportionally.

Yes, but to say something is true just because it's simple is not logically sound. It's the same as appealing to tradition/novelty or appeal to poverty/appeal to wealth.

This is not nihilistic (based on 1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths).

It's simply a matter of overcoming desire or craving. With desire/craving, there are two possibilities: 1) one obtains/attains/achieves what one desires, yet one's craving is not satiated, and the craving for more, or 2) one does not obtain/attain/achieve what one desires, and one is left disappointed. So putting things in perspective and reducing or eliminating craving, one overcomes disappointment or unhappiness.

Our desires are essentially based upon our value system. All of us have different value systems which is why we all have different desires. Nihilism believes that all values are baseless. Buddhism is applying this same belief by portraying desire in a negative overtone. Buddhism also wants us to detach ourselves from expectation. This is also implying a nihilistic viewpoint of "nothing can be communicated." We expect to portray our desires through means of communication. Both Buddhism and Nihilism take an extremely pessimistic view on this.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If you can't let desires move your life, what is there to live for? Why work for that job promotion? Is desiring a life to help the poor wrong? Without desire I see a life of sitting in my room rocking back and forth till I die.

 

[LightbulbSun]

If you can't let desires move your life, what is there to live for? Why work for that job promotion? Is desiring a life to help the poor wrong? Without desire I see a life of sitting in my room rocking back and forth till I die.

Hence why Buddhism is Nihilistic in its principles.

 

[Seiryuu]

Far from it. You're missing the point. Buddhism isn't about not having desires, it's about becoming detached from your desires. There's a difference and I think Astronuc explained it pretty well.

Our desires are essentially based upon our value system. All of us have different value systems which is why we all have different desires. Nihilism believes that all values are baseless. Buddhism is applying this same belief by portraying desire in a negative overtone. Buddhism also wants us to detach ourselves from expectation. This is also implying a nihilistic viewpoint of "nothing can be communicated." We expect to portray our desires through means of communication. Both Buddhism and Nihilism take an extremely pessimistic view on this.

Buddhism doesn't place any negative tone at all. It simply states that desires are the root of all suffering and that if you want to be free of suffering, you should be free of desires. But again, there's a very large difference between being free of desires and having no desires at all!

Being free means not that you don't have desires, but rather that you are not attached to them. It simply means that you accept reality a 100% as it is. Or in other words: that you don't resist the situations around you based on whether your desires are actually fulfilled or not. If you are able to accept any outcome, regardless of whether it matches your expectations, you become incapable of suffering and you will start experiencing joy even in the worst possible circumstances.

 

[Astronuc]

If you can't let desires move your life, what is there to live for? Why work for that job promotion? Is desiring a life to help the poor wrong? Without desire I see a life of sitting in my room rocking back and forth till I die.

I don't let desires run move my life. I prefer to just do (which I learned from Buddhism, Taosim and others). I am not quite sure how to explain to someone from western society/culture.

I don't work for a job promotion or more money, I just do the best work that I can. If I get a promotion or more money fine, if not that's fine too, but I keep working, learning, contributing to the field and being successful.

It more about not letting one's desires to control one's life - hence the goal of moderation.

It's about not putting emphasis or importance on a given desire, and ultimately achieve without effort.

Rather than desiring to help the poor, one can simply go out and assist the poor. I will post about that elsewhere. Perhaps in it one will find part of the answer.

A Buddhist would recognize the value of something, but the idea is to refrain from over-valuing something, especially material items. In other words, don't make things more important than they are.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Far from it. You're missing the point. Buddhism isn't about not having desires, it's about becoming detached from your desires. There's a difference and I think Astronuc explained it pretty well.



Buddhism doesn't place any negative tone at all. It simply states that desires are the root of all suffering and that if you want to be free of suffering, you should be free of desires. But again, there's a very large difference between being free of desires and having no desires at all!

Being free means not that you don't have desires, but rather that you are not attached to them. It simply means that you accept reality a 100% as it is. Or in other words: that you don't resist the situations around you based on whether your desires are actually fulfilled or not. If you are able to accept any outcome, regardless of whether it matches your expectations, you become incapable of suffering and you will start experiencing joy even in the worst possible circumstances.

So free of desires essentially means "indifferent desires" which is a load of mumbo jumbo.

 

[Astronuc]

So free of desires essentially means "indifferent desires"

Not quite.

Seiryuu wrote "but rather that you are not attached to them." In other words, recognize desire for what it is and do not let is control oneself.

Western psychologists take about needs and wants. Wants are essentially desires, which are things that it would be nice to have, but are not necessary. The problem for some is the development of yearning or craving for something. Sometimes is can be obtained or attained, and for some brief time, one is satisfied. But then the craving for more appears, and one can be on a never ending cycle of craving, satiation, craving, . . . . Or, perhaps one does not obtain or attain the goal of one's craving, and one becomes disappointed, upset, miserable, angry, . . . . (all negative feelings).

One of the utilimate goals in Buddhism is to release oneself from the cycle of craving and the negative feelings of not satisfying the craving.

And actually, Judaism and Christianity have a similar trains of thought, and perhaps Islam as well.

Otherwise, don't worry - be happy.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I don't let desires run move my life. I prefer to just do (which I learned from Buddhism, Taosim and others). I am not quite sure how to explain to someone from western society/culture.

So are you saying that one is incapable of action because of desire? Because there are plenty of examples of one desiring and then acting to fulfill those desires. Hence no "suffering."

A Buddhist would recognize the value of something, but the idea is to refrain from over-valuing something, especially material items. In other words, don't make things more important than they are.

Why are they so negative about material items? Our physical world is material.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Otherwise, don't worry - be happy.

And how is this line of thought in any way esoteric?

 

[waht]

1. You shouldn't become too attached to external things that are ultimately temporal.
2. All happiness must come from within.

If these two are true, then what should you do in life? Sit and meditate? Family and friends should not be invested in?

These are just words made up by someone long time ago that stumbled upon some principles of psychology, hypnosis, and NLP (neuro-linguistic programming). They sure indeed sound as if they are absolute and hence project a sense of power that can captivate someone.

These guides are good if you want to avoid getting emotionally hurt.

 

[Astronuc]

So are you saying that one is incapable of action because of desire?

No - nowhere is that stated or inferred. There can be action with or without desire.

Why are they so negative about material items? Our physical world is material.

They are not negative on material things. It is simply of avoiding attachment to materials things (i.e. avoid materialism), especially if that attachment leads to unhappiness or suffering.

 

[LightbulbSun]

They are not negative on material things. It is simply of avoiding attachment to materials things (i.e. avoid materialism), especially if that attachment leads to unhappiness or suffering.

I'm still not sure as to how being attached to something material is a negative thing though.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm still not sure as to how being attached to something material is a negative thing though.

It's not necessarily negative, unless the attachment causes one frustration or distress, because one cannot obtain it, or one obtains it but is still not satisfied. For example, one wants a particular car in a certain colour, but the dealer does not have it in stock, or it doesn't have the options one wants. I've seen people terribly worked up because they can't get what they 'want'. That's just one example, but I could provide thousands of others.

Of course, anyone can choose to be materialistic - that's certainly one's freedom to do so.

For others, they can choose to become less materialistic.

There are also other aspects to being happy, joyful, or content.

 

[LightbulbSun]

It's not necessarily negative, unless the attachment causes one frustration or distress, because one cannot obtain it, or one obtains it but is still not satisfied. For example, one wants a particular car in a certain colour, but the dealer does not have it in stock, or it doesn't have the options one wants. I've seen people terribly worked up because they can't get what they 'want'. That's just one example, but I could provide thousands of others.

Of course, anyone can choose to be materialistic - that's certainly one's freedom to do so.

For others, they can choose to become less materialistic.

There are also other aspects to being happy, joyful, or content.

I understand. So I think we could extend this by saying that if your attachment causes frustration or distress then it's a bad thing whether this thing is material, or a concept.

 

[Seiryuu]

Yes. It is your attachment that causes the suffering. For example:

So free of desires essentially means "indifferent desires" which is a load of mumbo jumbo.

Here you demonstrate the power of perception and attachment. You associate "free of desires" with indifferent desires and therefore attach a negative value to it: "a load of mumbo jumbo". In other words, it is not the concept that causes you to see that way, but rather your perception of that concept. If you were to see that free of desires can mean something else other than indifferent desires, you can detach both concepts and wouldn't be judging it as "a load of mumbo jumbo" so easily.

The same thing is true for suffering. If you can see that is your perception of a situation that causes you to suffer, rather than the situation itself, you realize that all you have to do to transform suffering into joy is changing your own perceptions...

To take the example of the car: if your desire is to have a particular car in a certain colour and the dealer doesn't have it in stock, you can see it as something negative because you don't get what you want. Or, you can see it as something positive if you look at it as an opportunity to choose something different that you would have never chosen if you would have gotten what you wanted in the first place.

Let's assume two persons who have these two different perceptions. Both share the same initial desire: a particular car in a certain colour and neither is in stock. Both will find themselves in the same situation, but the person getting worked up will suffer from it, because he cannot let go of his desires, while the person seeing the opportunities might actually like it since he is open to receive something else than what he desired in the first place.

The difference is clearly attachment onto the initial desire. Attachment as in: "holding on to it". As long as you hold on to desire, you will be driven by it and it will influence the way you look at things. If you can let it go, that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't desire anything at all, but simply that when pursuing your desires you are able to accept whatever happens to you whether it is something that you wanted or not.

The important thing to note here is that as long as we hold on to what we want, we see not getting what we want as something negative, while getting something different might actually be positive, if for example, you get something better instead. People who continue to hold on to what they want, will not even be able to see that though, because even when they get something better, they still see it as something negative since it's not what they wanted...

In other words, holding on to desires clouds your judgement and makes you overvalue that what you desire and undervalue that what you do not. This is why, very often after having received that what you have craved for, you don't feel fullfilled, because you have been overvalueing it since the start and suddenly you notice that it wasn't all that valueable to you at all in the first place.

 

[Seiryuu]

Our desires are essentially based upon our value system. All of us have different value systems which is why we all have different desires. Nihilism believes that all values are baseless. Buddhism is applying this same belief by portraying desire in a negative overtone. Buddhism also wants us to detach ourselves from expectation. This is also implying a nihilistic viewpoint of "nothing can be communicated." We expect to portray our desires through means of communication. Both Buddhism and Nihilism take an extremely pessimistic view on this.

As pointed out before, the difference between Buddhism and Nihilism is that the latter states all values are baseless, while Buddhism actually states the opposite: it acknowledges the value of everything in existence. As such, being free of desires does not mean that you don't value at all, but rather that you learn to see the proper value of all that is and put things in perspective instead of over- or undervalueing.

The mere act of making choices in life, means you assign and compare values and this is highly personal for each of us indeed, as we all make different choices based on how we value things. But if you can properly recognize the value of everything as it comes to you, you will be able to make the choices that truly make you happy instead of making choices based on a value system that is distorted by holding on to desires.

Maybe it's best explained with another example about hunger.

In the Four Noble Truths it states that "the cause of suffering is rooted in desire." I don't mean to extend this claim so much, but if I desire a hamburger, does that mean the cause of it is some form of suffering? I'm not sure that logic is completely sound.

As you have correctly guessed, neither the hunger nor the desire for a burger is a form of suffering. You just notice that you are hungry and desire a hamburger, but you can't say that you're suffering at this point. You would be suffering, however, if you were hungry, desire a hamburger and are unable to get it. That's what's meant with "the cause of suffering is rooted in desire".

Let's illustrate it a bit more. Say that you find yourself in a foreign city and you notice yourself as being hungry. Immediately the desire arises that you want a hamburger.

A person who's attached to that desire will go out and search for a place where he can get hamburgers. He will focus on his objective and walk around and around until he finds such a place. If he can find it, he will experience joy, but if he can't he will suffer from it as he'll either have to continue searching somewhere else or have to find something else to eat.

A person who has overcome desire will do the same thing. He'll go out and search for the same place, but instead of focussing on the objective itself, he will be focussed on whatever he comes across as he is searching. As such, he might find a place where he can eat hamburgers and experience joy. But he might also come across something different and think, "oh, this looks even better, I'll just go eat here" and he'll also experience joy. Or he might not find anything at all that suits his taste, but instead of suffering from it, he'll just be happy with the next best thing, because he realizes that he'd rather eat something else, than having to search for hours just to get the object of his desires. Either way, anything he does becomes joy instead of suffering, because he sees and acknowledges the value in all these alternatives that are giving him something different as opposed to what he desires.

 

[mal4mac]

A person who has overcome desire will do the same thing. He'll go out and search for the same place, but instead of focussing on the objective itself, he will be focussed on whatever he comes across as he is searching. As such, he might find a place where he can eat hamburgers and experience joy. But he might also come across something different and think, "oh, this looks even better, I'll just go eat here" and he'll also experience joy. Or he might not find anything at all that suits his taste, but instead of suffering from it, he'll just be happy with the next best thing, because he realizes that he'd rather eat something else, than having to search for hours just to get the object of his desires. Either way, anything he does becomes joy instead of suffering, because he sees and acknowledges the value in all these alternatives that are giving him something different as opposed to what he desires.

What if he never find anywhere to eat? Does he suffer at any point on his way to starvation? I can see how he might overcome the suffering of having to eat fish & chips instead of a hamburger, but can he overcome *real* suffering? You might find a monk who says he starved for days and didn't suffer. But how do you know he's not making it up "to look good".

 

[Seiryuu]

If you're talking about not feeling any physical pain or discomfort, then the answer is no. If you're starving because you didn't find anything to eat, then you will feel that starvation.

But can you feel all that without actually suffering from it? Then the answer is yes. The reason for that is simple: suffering lies not in the fact, but rather in the perception of the fact.

What causes us to suffer when we are in pain?
The perception that pain is something negative, a bad thing.

What causes us to suffer when are starving, ill or perhaps even dying?
Again the perception that all of these things are something negative.

Because we are conditioned to see them as something negative, we cannot accept it if we are in these conditions and start resisting instead of enjoying the sensations. The resistance to reality, is what causes suffering, not reality itself.

Therefore, someone who doesn't have these negative associations attributed to starvation, illness or even death can not suffer from them. But he will definitely feel the pain, illness, etc. Now if you're wondering how the hell anyone could ever see these situations as something positive, well, I didn't say it was going to be easy :rofl:

An example of positive conditioning could be though, that someone realizes that whenever he feels pain, the body is actually healing itself. So someone who makes the association between pain and healing, might actually be able to enjoy it, as he knows that as long as he feels pain a good thing is happening. And well, some people do just enjoy pain regardless of that...

 

[LightbulbSun]

The same thing is true for suffering. If you can see that is your perception of a situation that causes you to suffer, rather than the situation itself, you realize that all you have to do to transform suffering into joy is changing your own perceptions...

Lets take a deeper example than the car since that's easy to see. How about a sociopath vs a compassionate human being? Is my negative connotation of the sociopath just merely my perception of a situation? If I attempted to view everything from his view, does that make being a sociopath a positive thing? If so, this is delving into relativism which I completely disagree with.

What causes us to suffer when we are in pain?
The perception that pain is something negative, a bad thing.

Actually pain is more like an alert system from our body that something is wrong. It is wise to act upon this alert system instead of just rationalizing away that it's merely perception.

 

[mal4mac]

If you're talking about not feeling any physical pain or discomfort, then the answer is no. If you're starving because you didn't find anything to eat, then you will feel that starvation.

But can you feel all that without actually suffering from it? Then the answer is yes. The reason for that is simple: suffering lies not in the fact, but rather in the perception of the fact.

Is the raw pain a nice feeling or a not-nice feeling? If it's a not-nice feeling then that's my definition of suffering. I would also suggest it is the "everyday" definition of suffering. So, using everyday language, the starving monk suffers, just like everyone else. He may suffer less, because he doesn't berate himself by saying, "Poor me! I must find food!" But you don't need to be a Buddhist not to indulge in such berating, just a sensible human being. For instance, the ancient Greeks, and Albert Ellis, used cognitive techniques to fight such thoughts.

What causes us to suffer when we are in pain?
The perception that pain is something negative, a bad thing.

That may be a small part of it, but a tumour tearing our insides apart might be the bigger part of it. Would your monk not seek alleviation of pain through modern medication in preference to ancient meditation?

What causes us to suffer when are starving, ill or perhaps even dying?
Again the perception that all of these things are something negative.

Again, maybe in small ways. But lack of food or a dirty great tumour are likely to be more proximal causes.

Because we are conditioned to see them as something negative, we cannot accept it if we are in these conditions and start resisting instead of enjoying the sensations. The resistance to reality, is what causes suffering, not reality itself.

If we didn't see starving as negative we would not bother to eat!

... he will definitely feel the pain, illness, etc.

That is, he suffers, if the word "suffers" is to have meaning in normal discourse!

An example of positive conditioning could be though, that someone realizes that whenever he feels pain, the body is actually healing itself. So someone who makes the association between pain and healing, might actually be able to enjoy it, as he knows that as long as he feels pain a good thing is happening...

How does the pain of terminal cancer indicate a healing experience?

 

[Seiryuu]

Lets take a deeper example than the car since that's easy to see. How about a sociopath vs a compassionate human being? Is my negative connotation of the sociopath just merely my perception of a situation? If I attempted to view everything from his view, does that make being a sociopath a positive thing? If so, this is delving into relativism which I completely disagree with.

Comparing it with the car example, a sociopath may actually enjoy acting the way he does, while most of us would not. The reason why he can do so, is because he isn't troubled by the same moral issues that cause us to see it as negative behaviour. He may be a cause of suffering for others, but he himself does not suffer. If we on the other hand would act in the same way as a sociopath does, we would suffer from it, because we perceive sociopathic behaviour as bad or negative. If you attempted to view everything from his view, I suppose sociopathy would indeed be a positive thing, as it would give you joy.

Of course, I'm not saying that you should change your point of view in this case, as the alternative to prevent suffering in the first place is by refraining from this kind of behaviour... This is especially true for people who can put things in perspective, as they are aware of the great amount of suffering they would inflict upon others and this awareness would prevent them from finding joy in it.

Actually pain is more like an alert system from our body that something is wrong. It is wise to act upon this alert system instead of just rationalizing away that it's merely perception.

I never said pain was merely a perception. I said that you suffer from it when you perceive the feeling of pain itself as something negative. If you want to prevent experiencing further pain, it would indeed be wise to act upon it. :p

Is the raw pain a nice feeling or a not-nice feeling? If it's a not-nice feeling then that's my definition of suffering. I would also suggest it is the "everyday" definition of suffering. So, using everyday language, the starving monk suffers, just like everyone else. He may suffer less, because he doesn't berate himself by saying, "Poor me! I must find food!" But you don't need to be a Buddhist not to indulge in such berating, just a sensible human being. For instance, the ancient Greeks, and Albert Ellis, used cognitive techniques to fight such thoughts.

That's what I meant really with:

What causes us to suffer when we are in pain?
The perception that pain is something negative, a bad thing.

Suffering is caused from seeing pain as something negative or bad, or in other words, from seeing it as a not-nice feeling. If you were to look at pain as a nice feeling, it's impossible to suffer from pain...

That may be a small part of it, but a tumour tearing our insides apart might be the bigger part of it. Would your monk not seek alleviation of pain through modern medication in preference to ancient meditation?

He may definitely want to use medication for the sake of overcoming his injuries, illnesses or simply to prevent the sensation of pain to become overwhelming. It's not because he doesn't suffer or in the extreme case that he can enjoy his pain that he wouldn't want to do something about his health. Unless he wants to be ill of course, but then that's a choice he makes.

Again, maybe in small ways. But lack of food or a dirty great tumour are likely to be more proximal causes.

Lack of food, a tumour, etc are all causes of pain. Suffering begins when you resist the pain by seeing it as a negative feeling.

If we didn't see starving as negative we would not bother to eat!

Or maybe you bother to eat because you enjoy other things more than the feeling of starving. I know I do! :p

That is, he suffers, if the word "suffers" is to have meaning in normal discourse!

Suffering is a perception of the mind, the physical sensation that we call pain is not... :p

How does the pain of terminal cancer indicate a healing experience?

It was an example of what one could associate with the feeling of pain as a positive alternative instead of the negative connotation we have. Whether pain actually indicates a healing experience or not is something different, although if you think about it, you can't help but notice that pain occurs when the body is damaged and disappears when it is not.

Therefore I am speculating that pain is in fact related to a sensation of healing. But in the case of terminal cancer, the damage is spreading faster than the body can heal, hence the combination of intense pain with a steady decline of our health. It doesn't matter though if this is actually makes sense or not, I just used it as an example.

 

[mal4mac]

Suffering is caused from seeing pain as something negative or bad, or in other words, from seeing it as a not-nice feeling. If you were to look at pain as a nice feeling, it's impossible to suffer from pain...

How can you ever see pain as a nice thing? Evolution has led to us automatically "viewing" pain as something to avoid, because doing so enables us to live and reproduce. "Something to avoid" is, surely, everyone's definition of a not-nice thing. We can't avoid feeling pain as bad, it would be like deciding to see the world in eleven dimensions instead of three. Can't be done (at least not through immediate perception!)

Even Buddhist monks avoid pain (most of the time!), so they view pain as a not-nice thing.

He may definitely want to use medication ... to prevent the sensation of pain to become overwhelming. It's not because he doesn't suffer or in the extreme case that he can enjoy his pain that he wouldn't want to do something about his health. Unless he wants to be ill of course, but then that's a choice he makes.

Why would he ever want to use medication? If something becomes over-whelming then it is a not-nice thing, that is, a form of suffering. But you just said pain could always be viewed as nice! You are contradicting yourself.

Suffering is a perception of the mind, the physical sensation that we call pain is not... :p

It seems to me it is. You can see alterations in brain function if, say, you get hit by a spade. These are correlated with changes in mental function and subjective expressions of pain. You can't just ignore the brain waves that indicate pain. They are part of you and therefore part of your mind. They are the raw essence of suffering, and no amount of meditation will wish them away. The horrendous pictures of Tibetan monks being beaten by their Chinese oppressors showed them at least trying to avoid the blows of police batons. Why did they bother doing that if they can convert pain into "feeling good"?

 

[Seiryuu]

How can you ever see pain as a nice thing? Evolution has led to us automatically "viewing" pain as something to avoid, because doing so enables us to live and reproduce. "Something to avoid" is, surely, everyone's definition of a not-nice thing. We can't avoid feeling pain as bad, it would be like deciding to see the world in eleven dimensions instead of three. Can't be done (at least not through immediate perception!)

Even Buddhist monks avoid pain (most of the time!), so they view pain as a not-nice thing.

You are confusing avoiding (running away from) with the choice to experience something else other than pain. The most obvious reason not to experience pain is, like you said, because you feel it whenever something is wrong. In other words, while a monk doesn't have to avoid pain for the sake of avoiding suffering, he still has to avoid pain to prevent injury or illness if he values his health and life...

Why would he ever want to use medication? If something becomes over-whelming then it is a not-nice thing, that is, a form of suffering. But you just said pain could always be viewed as nice! You are contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. You assume that when something becomes overwhelming you suffer. This is not true. Pain is a strong sensation. If it becomes too strong, it overwhelms you, just like you can be overwhelmed with grief or with joy for that matter. I very much doubt that you'll see being overwhelmed with joy as a form of suffering. Overwhelming means nothing more than one sensation becoming so strong that you can't feel anything else anymore other than that sensation. Even if he doesn't resist the pain itself, he may still want to use medication to heal his injuries.

It seems to me it is. You can see alterations in brain function if, say, you get hit by a spade. These are correlated with changes in mental function and subjective expressions of pain. You can't just ignore the brain waves that indicate pain. They are part of you and therefore part of your mind. They are the raw essence of suffering, and no amount of meditation will wish them away. The horrendous pictures of Tibetan monks being beaten by their Chinese oppressors showed them at least trying to avoid the blows of police batons. Why did they bother doing that if they can convert pain into "feeling good"?

I said pain was physical. What are alterations in the brain function? Are they mental? No, they're a physical reaction too. Is there a correlation with the changes in mental function? Of course. That correlation is the translation of the physical sensations into a mental perception. So the question is not, can we ignore the brain waves that are caused by pain, but rather, are the brain waves themselves an indication of pain or an indication of how we perceive pain? And if they are indeed an exact indication of pain, a new question arises: is our ability to perceive, our consciousness, an effect of these brainwaves or can it interpret them seperately?

As for the monks, I never said they can convert pain into something else than pain. You cannot avoid experiencing pain when the body is in pain. It cannot be done. Avoiding that would be mentally running away from the sensation that is pain, which means you resist it and therefore suffer. But they can choose not to run away from it (again, in a mental way) and experience pain for what it is: a physical sensation. By doing this, they avoid suffering.

This is what is meant with "overcoming" suffering. It doesn't mean eliminating the pain, but merely eliminating the perception we have about pain. Whether those monks perceive pain as negative (leading to suffering) or positive (leading to joy) becomes a choice. Just like it is a choice as to defend yourself from becoming injured or not, which would be the whole point of trying to avoid the blows.

The same thing is meant with "overcoming" desires. It doesn't eliminate the desires themselves, but merely the attachment we have to our desires. And by attachment it doesn't mean the value of the desire itself, but rather the distortion of over- or undervalueing. It's all about putting the value of desires in their proper perspective.

 

[OrbitalPower]

This false analogy of associating buddhism with nihilism has been corrected before. It's interesting we should debate what Buddhism means by this or that as Buddha himself said "perhaps someone, somewhere will not misunderstand me."

But, how does one go about being buddhist. Are the things talked about here even possible in a society that values capitalistic "individualism." Would be it be barr to success? Or is it a way of coping with the everyday realities of our society or any society?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Passion and desire is the spice of life. Those who want to quell it because they fear suffering are the same people who are afraid to do anything new because they're afraid of failing at it. Just my two cents.

 

[mal4mac]

In other words, while a monk doesn't have to avoid pain for the sake of avoiding suffering, he still has to avoid pain to prevent injury or illness if he values his health and life

Pain *is* suffering, so of course he needs to avoid pain if he wants to avoid suffering. If injury was not suffering to hinm then why would he avid it or value health?

There is no contradiction. You assume that when something becomes overwhelming you suffer.

No -- if a monk encountered overwhelming pain he would suffer, whatever mental attitude he took to it. Of course he wouldn't suffer if was overwhelming joy!

Whether those monks perceive pain as negative (leading to suffering) or positive (leading to joy) becomes a choice.

Twaddle. Pain could never be positive. If someone was born feeling pain was positive then they would be an evolutionary dead end. Look at leprosy, people lose fingers because they cannot feel pain in them.

The same thing is meant with "overcoming" desires. It doesn't eliminate the desires themselves, but merely the attachment we have to our desires. And by attachment it doesn't mean the value of the desire itself, but rather the distortion of over- or undervalueing. It's all about putting the value of desires in their proper perspective.

You can always be "philosophical" when your desires are thwarted. But you are bound to feel some pain, otherwise it could not be something you wanted. A minor pain could be converted into a major one, by berating yourself ("I must find a hamburger stall!"), but you will always feel somne pain ("an empty stomach").