Dear Buddhists, I have a question

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

First of all, let me say that I know way to little about your philosophy/tradition/religion/system. I hope you'll forgive any potential misunderstanding of your faith. I find a lot of beauty and wisdom in your system. One thing I am a little uncertain about tho, is the focus on suffering, and all the energy that goes into avoiding it. That suffering is part of life is absolutely undeniable. However, I wonder, if this perspective possibly hinders your from experiencing all the beauty of life?

 

Again, I might be totally misunderstanding your way of life, and would really appreciate if someone could clarify.

[tao.te.kat]

In short: No.

 

Probably I never enjoyed life like I do now. 

 

For example, being conscious of your own death, unavoidable death (also for you, and maybe not so far away as we think) makes you value a lot more every moment of experience. 

 

Best wishes

Edited October 13 by tao.te.kat

[Dedicated]

We are unified by suffering. The middle path helps reduce suffering. Siddhartha experienced both opulence and asceticism, and while meditating heard a music teacher instruct his pupil to not have the string of the instrument too tight or too slack which was a revelation. 

 

An other way to look at your musing is, we all need to eat to avoid suffering hunger, so why not turn this necessity into a shared joy.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

2 hours ago, Dedicated said:

 

An other way to look at your musing is, we all need to eat to avoid suffering hunger, so why not turn this necessity into a shared joy.

Beautifull.

[Tommy]

Sometimes it is suffering that brings one to seek a way not to suffer. So, Buddhism starts with understanding suffering and ways to freedom from suffering. Notice, one is not avoiding anything. One is looking for freedom from suffering. Of course suffering is unavoidable. If you live then you will suffer. It is this suffering that sometimes drives one to seek relief from such things.

 

Do we avoid it? No, we experience life as it is and strive to survive or flourish in this life. But, also do not run into things just to experience suffering. It is a way of living that is balanced.

 

To understand Buddhism then one should practice. Learn the Dharma and practice living a good life.  Sit in meditation. Read and interact with others on the path. Good luck to you.

[silent thunder]

i have found that while there inevitably will be discomfort and there will occasionally be intense pain, this does not require, mandate or force one to suffer.

 

Suffering is a product generated in egoic awareness; it is a crisis of perception in my experience. 

[Cobie]

deleted
 

Edited Sunday at 04:42 PM by Cobie

[tao.te.kat]

>I don’t ever want to lose this ability to feel such sorrow. 

 

This statement is quite strange. I was thinking you will say "I dont want to lose the ability to feel love".

 

Buddhism is focused on love and compassion, and kindness. Not only not to avoid it but it's central in buddhism. There's no bodhisatva without compassion and kindness.

 

But buddhism also teaches you that sorrow and suffering is not mandatory. It's optional. Being mandatory if you love seems to be the foundation of your argument. So for buddhism your argument is flawed. Buddhism breaks the relation love-sorrow you comment on.

 

If you want to feel sorrow because is part of the beauty of life, then yes, buddhism wont be for you. But maybe you just meant that you will not renounce love for fear of sorrow. Then Buddhism agrees with you 100%.

 

Also we all must admit that not every doctrine is for everyone. We're all different. So it's fine if you find buddhism strange and not for you.

 

Best wishes.

Edited Sunday at 03:10 PM by tao.te.kat

[Cobie]

You can’t have a positive without creating a negative.
有無相生 - You(有) and Wu(無) mutually produce each other (DDJ Ch 2, CD translation)

 

Edited Sunday at 04:53 PM by Cobie

[tao.te.kat]

>You can’t have a positive without creating a negative.

 

So you're not a buddhist because that are your beliefs, no surprise, no problem, Wish you the best.

 

[Mark Foote]

On 10/12/2024 at 10:40 AM, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

First of all, let me say that I know way to little about your philosophy/tradition/religion/system. I hope you'll forgive any potential misunderstanding of your faith. I find a lot of beauty and wisdom in your system. One thing I am a little uncertain about tho, is the focus on suffering, and all the energy that goes into avoiding it. That suffering is part of life is absolutely undeniable. However, I wonder, if this perspective possibly hinders your from experiencing all the beauty of life?

 

Again, I might be totally misunderstanding your way of life, and would really appreciate if someone could clarify.
        

 

 

Buddhism is a large umbrella, covering many different faiths and many different teachings.

 

If you want to familiarize yourself with Gautama the Shakyan's teachings (the Buddha), I would recommend the first four collections of sermons (the first four Nikayas in the Pali Canon) and possibly the rules of the order (the Vinaya).

 

In the Nikayas, Gautama offered four "truths" about suffering (in this case, the Pali  word has been translated as "anguish"):

 

“And what has been explained by me… ? ‘This is anguish’ has been explained by me. ‘This is the arising of anguish’ has been explained by me… ‘This is the stopping of anguish’ has been explained by me. ‘This is the course leading to the stopping of anguish’ has been explained by me. And why… has this been explained by me? It is because it is connected with the goal, is fundamental to the [holy-]faring, and conduces to turning away from, to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, and nibbana. Therefore it has been explained by me.”

 

(MN 63; Pali Text Society translation vol. II p 101)

 

 

“Birth is anguish, old age and decay, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation, and despair are anguish. Not to get what one desires is anguish. In short, the five groups based on grasping are anguish.”
 

(AN 3.61; Pali Text Society vol. I p 160; Pali “dukkha”, Horner's translation “anguish” here substituted for Woodward's “ill”)

 

 

About the five groups (from my own website):

 

Anguish may be brought to an end, said Gautama, when the cause of anguish has been distinguished; the cause to which he attested was “grasping after self”, deriving a sense of self from the phenomena of body or mind (MN 75; PTS vol. II p 190). Phenomena of the body or mind cannot rightly be called one’s own, as Gautama pointed out to the Jain Aggivessana:

 

“What do you think about this, Aggivessana? When you speak thus: ‘Material shape is my self’, have you power over this material shape of yours (and can say) ‘Let my material shape be thus, Let my material shape be not thus?’ When you speak thus: ‘Feeling … perception… the habitual tendencies… consciousness is my self’: have you power over this feeling … perception… the habitual tendencies… consciousness of yours (and can say): ‘Let my consciousness be such, let my consciousness not be such’?”

 

(MN 1 35; PTS vol I pp 284-285)

 

 

“The habitual tendencies” Gautama referred to here were the “tendencies” to exercise will toward sensory contact, one “tendency” for each of the senses (including the sense of mind; SN 22.56 6, PTS vol III p 53).

 

 

My favorite declension of "the arising of anguish (suffering)"--there are many subtly different declensions in Gautama's teaching:

 

That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existance takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.

 

Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.

 

But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.

 

(SN 12.38; PTS vol II p 45)

 

 

How the exercise of will in speech, in action of the body (in particular in the activity of inbreathing and outbreathing), and in action of the mind (particularly in feeling and perceiving) ceases:

 

“…I have seen that the ceasing of the activities is gradual. When one has attained the first trance [first meditative state], 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. When one has attained the realm of infinite space, perception of objects has ceased. When one has attained the realm of infinite consciousness, perception of the realm of infinite space has ceased. When one has attained the realm of nothingness, the perception of the realm of infinite consciousness has ceased. When one has attained the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the perception of the realm of nothingness has ceased. Both perception and feeling have ceased when one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.”

 

(SN 36.11 2, PTS vol IV p 146)

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Mark Foote