- #36
Seiryuu
- 17
- 0
Look, this can be an argument going on forever, since we're obviously not talking about the same thing. You assume that pain is suffering, so it's quite normal that in your logic one can never be free of suffering. I agree, there's no point arguing with that. If suffering = pain, then you're 100% right.
The whole idea based on what I'm trying to explain however, is the notion that pain and suffering are two different concepts and that pain can be experienced as a sensation without having to suffer from it. It's not like you have to agee with it, we'll just agree to disagree then, but then there's no point continuing the conversation.
However if you want to understand the reasoning, you'll at least have to make an effort to try and see the possibilities that arise from this change in assumption. Without doing so, you cannot see the logic from my perspective and you will continue to try and prove it wrong based on your perspective. Realise that there is no right or wrong here, but that our difference in opinion totally depends on whether pain is the same thing as suffering or not.
As I have pointed out before, to me suffering is not pain. Suffering is the resistance to acknowledging the value of pain, hence why we see pain as something bad, while we should be merely seeing it as a physical sensation that alerts us when something is wrong. In this way, pain is a positive thing. It doesn't mean that pain has a positive effect, that's a different story.
The misconception you seem to have is that when pain is viewed as positive, that it means that you see it as something that is good for you or that you automatically have no reason to do something about it.
Look, a Buddhist sees the proper value in everything. While he acknowledges the value of pain, this doesn't mean he is oblivious to the value of his own health. Seeing as how he values the pain as a warning, he will not suffer from it. But if he were to lose perspective on the value of his own health or life, then he would indeed do nothing to avoid the pain.
To summarise: although the perception of pain may be positive (pain is a good thing, because it tells me something is wrong), the monk is still aware that the cause or effect pain might have can be negative on his health. Hence, as long as he values that, he'll take action to stop the pain...
True if pain is suffering. The whole point however is that suffering is unrelated to pain.
Experiencing pain as a positive sensation, is not the same thing as being ignorant to it's cause or effects and thinking pain is good for you. It merely means that you recognise the value of pain as a way to protect you from harm.
The leprosy example is actually a quite good case where people may definitely suffer upon noticing how they loose their fingers, without feeling any pain at all.
As long as you desire, there's a chance that you might indeed feel disappointment, anger, pain or whatever. This doesn't change. What changes is that you no longer see that disappointment, anger or pain as something negative and that it's ok to feel the way you feel at any given time. As such, none of these '"pains" will bother you and you won't suffer from them.
Why? Because suffering is the resistance (as in: not acknowledging the value of) to reality as we experience it. If you have an emotion and resist that emotion, you suffer. If you are in pain and resist the feeling of pain, you suffer. In the same way, if you resist the fact that you can't get what you want for some reason, you suffer.
If you accept the fact that you wanted something and can't get it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you wanted something, can't get it and feel disappointed about it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you can't accept a situation, you will not suffer (as contradictory as it may sound :tongue:).
A valid statement, but totally unrelated to Buddhism as already pointed out before.
What Buddhism is about (imho) is not that you can't have desires, but simply that you learn not to hold on to them. You desire and let go of that desire, as in you want something but rather than focussing on it's fulfillment, you focus on whatever happens as you go along. By doing this you can make the choices that lead to happiness at any given time, instead of making choices that will eventually lead to happiness when the desire is fulfilled in some distant future. Also, a Buddhist accepts the situations he finds himself based upon his choices in and changes his desires accordingly, instead of trying to resist the situations themselves by holding on to desire.
Oh and you should also realize that I edited this post a gazillion of times, because it's almost impossible to explain it right, without missing or contradicting somewhere. That's why I believe it's equally hard to interpret it right, unless you have experienced it yourself, hence all the misconceptions... At least I hope it makes *some* sense :p
The whole idea based on what I'm trying to explain however, is the notion that pain and suffering are two different concepts and that pain can be experienced as a sensation without having to suffer from it. It's not like you have to agee with it, we'll just agree to disagree then, but then there's no point continuing the conversation.
However if you want to understand the reasoning, you'll at least have to make an effort to try and see the possibilities that arise from this change in assumption. Without doing so, you cannot see the logic from my perspective and you will continue to try and prove it wrong based on your perspective. Realise that there is no right or wrong here, but that our difference in opinion totally depends on whether pain is the same thing as suffering or not.
As I have pointed out before, to me suffering is not pain. Suffering is the resistance to acknowledging the value of pain, hence why we see pain as something bad, while we should be merely seeing it as a physical sensation that alerts us when something is wrong. In this way, pain is a positive thing. It doesn't mean that pain has a positive effect, that's a different story.
mal4mac said: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?
The misconception you seem to have is that when pain is viewed as positive, that it means that you see it as something that is good for you or that you automatically have no reason to do something about it.
Look, a Buddhist sees the proper value in everything. While he acknowledges the value of pain, this doesn't mean he is oblivious to the value of his own health. Seeing as how he values the pain as a warning, he will not suffer from it. But if he were to lose perspective on the value of his own health or life, then he would indeed do nothing to avoid the pain.
To summarise: although the perception of pain may be positive (pain is a good thing, because it tells me something is wrong), the monk is still aware that the cause or effect pain might have can be negative on his health. Hence, as long as he values that, he'll take action to stop the pain...
mal4mac said: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!
True if pain is suffering. The whole point however is that suffering is unrelated to pain.
mal4mac said: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.
Experiencing pain as a positive sensation, is not the same thing as being ignorant to it's cause or effects and thinking pain is good for you. It merely means that you recognise the value of pain as a way to protect you from harm.
The leprosy example is actually a quite good case where people may definitely suffer upon noticing how they loose their fingers, without feeling any pain at all.
mal4mac said: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").
As long as you desire, there's a chance that you might indeed feel disappointment, anger, pain or whatever. This doesn't change. What changes is that you no longer see that disappointment, anger or pain as something negative and that it's ok to feel the way you feel at any given time. As such, none of these '"pains" will bother you and you won't suffer from them.
Why? Because suffering is the resistance (as in: not acknowledging the value of) to reality as we experience it. If you have an emotion and resist that emotion, you suffer. If you are in pain and resist the feeling of pain, you suffer. In the same way, if you resist the fact that you can't get what you want for some reason, you suffer.
If you accept the fact that you wanted something and can't get it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you wanted something, can't get it and feel disappointed about it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you can't accept a situation, you will not suffer (as contradictory as it may sound :tongue:).
LightbulbSun said: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.
A valid statement, but totally unrelated to Buddhism as already pointed out before.
What Buddhism is about (imho) is not that you can't have desires, but simply that you learn not to hold on to them. You desire and let go of that desire, as in you want something but rather than focussing on it's fulfillment, you focus on whatever happens as you go along. By doing this you can make the choices that lead to happiness at any given time, instead of making choices that will eventually lead to happiness when the desire is fulfilled in some distant future. Also, a Buddhist accepts the situations he finds himself based upon his choices in and changes his desires accordingly, instead of trying to resist the situations themselves by holding on to desire.
Oh and you should also realize that I edited this post a gazillion of times, because it's almost impossible to explain it right, without missing or contradicting somewhere. That's why I believe it's equally hard to interpret it right, unless you have experienced it yourself, hence all the misconceptions... At least I hope it makes *some* sense :p
Last edited: