There is no way to prevent suffering.

[Cadcam]

The Buddha says one needs to know Right Action to avoid suffering, but there is no way to prevent suffering, because all action leads to desire, either for one's self, or for other people. If I take an action, I cause someone to desire, or I am working upon acquiring a desire. Therefore this premise is faulted. There is no way to prevent desire, which he says causes suffering. 

[Cadcam]

The only path is to obey all laws, and not be something to desire, nor to desire anything.

[silent thunder]

I have found that, particularly if one has a body, there is likely to be discomfort, there may be pain, but this does not mean I have to suffer.  Though suffering is not in itself ever a physical process, it is mentation based and emotionally charged.

 

Suffering ^{(in my experience)} is a layer of perception that is superimposed onto experiential reality.   At this point it seems mostly generated by the verb process of egoing and entirely secondary and self generated/imposed.

 

Shakespeare addressed it adroitly in the scene between Hamlet, Rosencranz and Guildenstern when Hamlet says...

    "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams."

[old3bob]

I'd say desire is not to made into the boogey man,  did not the the historic Buddha demonstrate that he was filled to brim with desire, desire for the freedom of enlightenment, (?)  just as it so for all beings.    (while chasing lesser desires in various ways are misapplications or mis-directions of fulfilling the true desire of said freedom and all that it entails)

Edited January 17 by old3bob

[Sherman Krebbs]

5 hours ago, Cadcam said:

The Buddha says one needs to know Right Action to avoid suffering, but there is no way to prevent suffering, because all action leads to desire, either for one's self, or for other people. If I take an action, I cause someone to desire, or I am working upon acquiring a desire. Therefore this premise is faulted. There is no way to prevent desire, which he says causes suffering. 

 

Not speaking for Buddhism, but I know no answer other than to just suck it up and accept that life is full of pain and tribulation. I'd not trust anyone who says otherwise.

 

By acting diligently and authentically, however, a lot of life's pitfalls can be avoided.  That to me is the point of it all, though I am constantly digging myself out anyway.    

 

 

[silent thunder]

 

[Apotheose]

I remember reading an interesting critique about Stoicism once. The comment was that the Stoics perceived the world in a kind of pessimistic view because one of their very philosophical foundations was that “living is overcoming tribulations”.

 

I’m aware that Stoicism is much more than just ‘overcoming life’s trials’, but it’s crystal clear that that is indeed a strong feature of its philosophy.

 

If you talk to a Yogi, a Taoist or a Buddhist, the chances are high that they are not even thinking about avoiding suffering. They may not be even thinking about suffering at all to begin with. Because their system of belief does not focus so much on it.

 

As a christian, I notice that there are those christians who focus on Christ’s Love, and others that focus on “not being a sinner” and “battling everyday against the temptations of sin”. Man… imagine having your very inner foundation of belief in Sin and expecting not to see Sin everywhere in your life. I personally see it as a matter of awareness. What are you dominantly aware of in your life?

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Apotheose said:

I remember reading an interesting critique about Stoicism once. The comment was that the Stoics perceived the world in a kind of pessimistic view because one of their very philosophical foundations was that “living is overcoming tribulations”.

 

I’m aware that Stoicism is much more than just ‘overcoming life’s trials’, but it’s crystal clear that that is indeed a strong feature of its philosophy.

 

If you talk to a Yogi, a Taoist or a Buddhist, the chances are high that they are not even thinking about avoiding suffering. They may not be even thinking about suffering at all to begin with. Because their system of belief does not focus so much on it.

 

As a christian, I notice that there are those christians who focus on Christ’s Love, and others that focus on “not being a sinner” and “battling everyday against the temptations of sin”. Man… imagine having your very inner foundation of belief in Sin and expecting not to see Sin everywhere in your life. I personally see it as a matter of awareness. What are you dominantly aware of in your life?

 

Support . That is what  just popped into my head without thinking about it , when I read your question .  Out of that comes appreciation and from that celebration .  yet at the same time I realize and accept life is solid hard and bumpy  - ya cant skateboard without the 'concrete of life' under you .... and at times one is bound to 'fall off'  .

 

I hope that obscure metaphor can be understood 'spiritually '   

 

I dont suffer at all much really , even the physical stuff  ( several medical issues , mostly arthritis related ) ./ pain  but I still do stuff  ( like occasional martial arts 'rough housing' with much fitter and younger ,  laying concrete manually  (ie .  carrying bags mixing it in a wheelbarrow by hand , climbing up and down ladder with buckets of it , etc ) to help a friend make a pit toilet  , knowing that I will 'pay for it later ' .

 

Try to change what one can and accept what one cannot  ( however one's capability  of  making change might be greater than one imagines or is presently capable of  .... the premise of Magick ) .  Well  that certainly worked for me ! That has become a more dominant awareness in my latter life  ... how amazingly well everything ended up 'working out' .

 

I am CERTAINLY NOT  dominantly aware of 'sin' in my life .  Not being Christian, I have no concept of sin .... outside of the Christian concept .  

[Apotheose]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

yet at the same time I realize and accept life is solid hard and bumpy  - ya cant skateboard without the 'concrete of life' under you .... and at times one is bound to 'fall off'  .

I find this metaphor pretty accurate, to be honest. The very process of maturing is composed by those trials, and the child who gradually evolves is bound to fall into the ‘concrete floor’ sometimes, and from that learn.

 

The hardness of the ‘concrete’ is a driving force of change in a person’s mental ambience and daily life, and for that we must be grateful for the tribulations we had. Because if life was too easy for us, we would become somewhat spoiled.

Edited January 18 by Apotheose

[Apotheose]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Well  that certainly worked for me ! That has become a more dominant awareness in my latter life  ... how amazingly well everything ended up 'working out' .

I’m very grateful for hearing that, Nungali  

[Sherman Krebbs]

10 hours ago, Apotheose said:

I remember reading an interesting critique about Stoicism once. The comment was that the Stoics perceived the world in a kind of pessimistic view because one of their very philosophical foundations was that “living is overcoming tribulations”.

 

 

This got me thinking about Epicureans; found this quote on wikipedia:

 

Quote

When we say ... that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

— Epicurus, "Letter to Menoeceus"

 

Funny, I had always misunderstood Epicureanism to be pleasure seeking hedonism; though it is really more of a middle ground philosophy.    

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Brad M said:

Funny, I had always misunderstood Epicureanism to be pleasure seeking hedonism; though it is really more of a middle ground philosophy.    

 

It's common, sometimes people even use the phrase "epicurean dinner", I don't know the origins of that view but it it's not aligned with anything I've read from Epicurus. Imo he's a wonderful read, simple and practical.

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Brad M said:

 

This got me thinking about Epicureans; found this quote on wikipedia:

 

 

Funny, I had always misunderstood Epicureanism to be pleasure seeking hedonism; though it is really more of a middle ground philosophy.    

 

" Absence of trouble in the soul '"     

 

" How come  those simple village living people without many possessions seem so happy ?"

 

  

 

After absence of trouble of the soul comes  'expression' of the soul  .... we move from a deeper understanding of 'pleasure ' and move to a deeper understanding of happiness  . Again , not 'mundane every day happiness ' but an abiding one that is not effected by what disrupts 'lower' or simpler happiness  - transient happiness   - Eudamonia .

 

The ancients saw it as a manifestation caused by a few things   ( from different traditions ) ;

 

Knowing who you are why you are here and how you fit in .

having a tutelary deity , preferably connected to a genius loci .

Knowing and expressing your great work , ( the reason you incarnated this time around  and what you 'spiritually planned' to achieve ) .

Having a 'rational'  life  - rational having a specific meaning relating to  older philosophy.

Being appreciative and cementing that in ritual offerings .

Having a healthy 'soul expression'  ( meaning that the functions that relate to 'soul expression' - a unique function in humans -  are fulfilled ... if they are repressed then one can 'loose their soul'   and become life a depressed automaton) .  Often relating to artistic expression especially if it fulfils  'great work' .

[Mark Foote]

On 1/16/2024 at 11:28 PM, Cadcam said:

The Buddha says one needs to know Right Action to avoid suffering, but there is no way to prevent suffering, because all action leads to desire, either for one's self, or for other people. If I take an action, I cause someone to desire, or I am working upon acquiring a desire. Therefore this premise is faulted. There is no way to prevent desire, which he says causes suffering. 
 

 

Gautama’s teaching revolved around action, around one specific kind of action:
 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought. 

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III p 294)

 

“When one determines”—when a person exercises volition, or choice, action of “deed, word, or thought” follows.

 

Gautama also spoke of “the activities”.  The activities are the actions that take place as a consequence of the exercise of volition:

 

And what are the activities?  These are the three activities:–those of deed, speech and mind.  These are activities.  

(SN II 3, Pali Text Society vol II p 4)
 

 

Gautama claimed that a ceasing of “action” is possible:

 

And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.  

(SN IV 145, Pali Text Society Vol IV p 85)
 

 

He spoke in detail about how “the activities” come to cease:

 

…I have seen that the ceasing of the activities is gradual. When one has attained the first trance, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second trance, thought initial and sustained has ceased. When one has attained the third trance, zest has ceased. When one has attained the fourth trance, inbreathing and outbreathing have ceased… Both perception and feeling have ceased when one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.  

(SN IV 217, Pali Text Society vol IV p 146; emphasis added)

 

From something I'm writing for my own site:

 

There can… come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.

When a presence of mind is retained as the placement of attention shifts, then the natural tendency toward the free placement of attention can draw out thought initial and sustained, and bring on the stages of concentration.
 

What stage is appropriate, is a function of the natural tendency toward the free placement of attention.
 

Shunryu Suzuki said:
 

To enjoy our life-- complicated life, difficult life-- without ignoring it, and without being caught by it. Without suffer from it. That is actually what will happen to us after you practice zazen.

 

(“To Actually Practice Selflessness”, August Sesshin Lecture Wednesday, August 6, 1969, San Francisco)

I practice now to experience the free placement of attention as the sole source of activity in the body in the movement of breath, and in my complicated, difficult daily life I look for the mindfulness that allows me to touch on that freedom.

 

"The free placement of attention as the sole source of activity in the body in the movement of breath" is "the cessation of inbreathing and outbreathing" (which from Gautama's statements, up top, is "the cessation of ['determinate thought' in] inbreathing and outbreathing).

 

I know that while my father, the Sakyan, was ploughing, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, aloof from pleasures of the senses, aloof from unskilled states of mind, I entered on the first meditation, which is accompanied by initial thought and discursive thought, is born of aloofness, and is rapturous and joyful, and while abiding therein, I thought: ‘Now could this be a way to awakening?’ Then, following on my mindfulness, Aggivissana, there was the consciousness: This is itself the Way to awakening. This occurred to me, Aggivissana: ‘Now, am I afraid of that happiness which is happiness apart from sense-pleasures, apart from unskilled states of mind?’ This occurred to me…: I am not afraid of that happiness which is happiness apart from sense-pleasures, apart from unskilled states of mind.’
 

(MN 1 246-247, Vol I pg 301)

 

 

 

Edited January 19 by Mark Foote

[Sanity Check]

[Sherman Krebbs]

On 1/18/2024 at 11:36 PM, Nungali said:

Often relating to artistic expression especially if it fulfils  'great work' .

 

Much to be said about "artistic" happiness.   Loosing oneself in the pursuit of the artistic expression of life.  Hope everyone is having a good day!  Pass on the good vibes! 

[Keith108]

On 1/17/2024 at 2:28 AM, Cadcam said:

The Buddha says one needs to know Right Action to avoid suffering, but there is no way to prevent suffering, because all action leads to desire, either for one's self, or for other people. If I take an action, I cause someone to desire, or I am working upon acquiring a desire. Therefore this premise is faulted. There is no way to prevent desire, which he says causes suffering. 

 

Correct! There is no way to "prevent" suffering (Dukkha). That's like holding up a waterfall. But these words clearly reveal a profound lack of understanding of Buddhist practice.

 

Consider (emphasis mine):

 

Quote

THE CASE

 

Once when Pai-chang gave a series of talks, a certain old man was always there listening together with the monks. When they left, he would leave too. One day, however, he remained behind. Pai-chang asked him, “Who are you, standing here before me?” The old man replied, “I am not a human being. In the far distant past, in the time of Kāśyapa Buddha, I was head priest at this mountain. One day a monk asked me, ‘Does an enlightened person fall under the law of cause and effect or not?’ I replied, ‘Such a person does not fall under the law of cause and effect.’ With this I was reborn five hundred times as a fox.

 

Please say a turning word for me and release me from the body of a fox.” He then asked Pai-chang, “Does an enlightened person fall under the law of cause and effect or not?” Pai-chang said, “Such a person does not evade the law of cause and effect.” Hearing this, the old man immediately was enlightened. Making his bows he said, “I am released from the body of a fox. The body is on the other side of this mountain. I wish to make a request of you. Please, Abbot, perform my funeral as for a priest.”

 

Pai-chang had a head monk strike the signal board and inform the assembly that after the noon meal there would be a funeral service for a priest. The monks talked about this in wonder. “All of us are well. There is no one in the morgue. What does the teacher mean?” 

 

After the meal, Pai-chang led the monks to the foot of a rock on the far side of the mountain. And there, with his staff, he poked out the body of a dead fox. He then performed the ceremony of cremation. That evening he took the high seat before his assembly and told the monks the whole story. Huang-po stepped forward and said, “As you say, the old man missed the turning word and was reborn as a fox five hundred times. What if he had given the right answer each time he was asked a question—what would have happened then?” Pai-chang said, “Just step up here closer, and I’ll tell you.” Huang-po went up to Pai-chang and slapped him in the face. Pai-chang clapped his hands and laughed, saying, “I thought the Barbarian had a red beard, but here is a red-bearded Barbarian.”

 

WU-MEN’S COMMENT “Not falling under the law of cause and effect.” Why should this prompt five hundred lives as a fox? “Not evading the law of cause and effect.” Why should this prompt a return to human life? If you have the single eye of realization, you will appreciate how old Pai-chang lived five hundred lives as a fox as lives of grace.

 

WU-MEN’S VERSE Not falling, not evading— two faces of the same die. Not evading, not falling— a thousand mistakes, ten thousand mistakes.

 

Aitken, Robert. The Gateless Barrier: The Wu-Men Kuan (Mumonkan) (pp. 30-32). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. 

 

_/|\_

 

Edited January 29 by Keith108

[silent thunder]

In my experience suffering is not required. 

 

Gautama taught the methods to cease imposing suffering and be free.

 

Suffering seems an overlay, an imposition atop the process of reality through the unskillful means of aversion, attachment and lack of wisdom.

 

One may experience discomfort, pain, inconvenience, ignorance... that does not mean one must suffer.

 

Missing your presence @Marblehead

 

Spoiler

But not suffering  about it...

 

[manitou]

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Missing your presence @Marblehead

 

 

 

 

Me too, Marbles.  But I'm not suffering about it either...

 

Suffering takes a type of back seat when the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a situation are no longer defined as good or bad.  

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

In my experience suffering is not required. 

 

Gautama taught the methods to cease imposing suffering and be free.

 

Suffering seems an overlay, an imposition atop the process of reality through the unskillful means of aversion, attachment and lack of wisdom.

 

One may experience discomfort, pain, inconvenience, ignorance... that does not mean one must suffer.

 

Missing your presence @Marblehead

 

  Reveal hidden contents

But not suffering  about it...

 

For me, the first of the four truths precipitates the others.  That is to say, Gautama did not always drink beer, but when he did, he drank "Four Truths" brand.  When suffering is present, the other three of the four truths are equally valid and apply (when suffering is not present, no need to drink "Four Truths" brand).

 

 

 

[Sherman Krebbs]

 

On 1/30/2024 at 7:07 PM, silent thunder said:

In my experience suffering is not required. 

 

Gautama taught the methods to cease imposing suffering and be free.

 

Suffering seems an overlay, an imposition atop the process of reality through the unskillful means of aversion, attachment and lack of wisdom.

 

One may experience discomfort, pain, inconvenience, ignorance... that does not mean one must suffer.

 

My view lately has been bit more pessimistic, though I appreciate the positivity.  I tend to view suffering and pain as being necessary. Something one must grin and bear (with a positive attitude, as you say). Labeling painful experiences as “not suffering”, though wont make them go away.

Edited February 4 by Brad M
.

[idiot_stimpy]

On 17/01/2024 at 6:28 PM, Cadcam said:

The Buddha says one needs to know Right Action to avoid suffering, but there is no way to prevent suffering, because all action leads to desire, either for one's self, or for other people. If I take an action, I cause someone to desire, or I am working upon acquiring a desire. Therefore this premise is faulted. There is no way to prevent desire, which he says causes suffering. 

 

Only Buddhas are truly free?

[snowymountains]

On 2/5/2024 at 2:17 AM, idiot_stimpy said:

 

Only Buddhas are truly free?

 

Free from what is the question

 

Arahatship is sufficient, by definition, to be free from all 10 sanyoajana ( and for subsets of the 10, there's, again by definition, non-returner, once-returner and enterer ).

One could of course take the view that other non-Buddhist mental models are more complete and e.g. Jung's definition of free offers a more complete view. Was Jung himself in terms of spiritual development more or less free than an Arahat? food for thought.

 

So per nomenclature, stages are defined, "titles" are attached to stages etc.