3rd Noble Truth?

[Acumen]

Vern,

Why is this a "serious objection to Buddhism"?  No one said the process would be easy.  On top of that, I'm not sure that there can be a total elimination of suffering during one's life time unless their e.e.g. is flat-line.  Even if it's not possible to eliminate suffering in its entirety, we certainly can ameliorate it and possibly shorten its duration.

I thought I already went over this?  If love requires an attachment, if attachment to transient things causes suffering when those things die or disappear, then suffering is the natural consequence of love.  In actuality, there is no freedom from suffering as long as we love things.

And this introduces yet another question -- why is suffering something we seek refuge from? 

[metis]

I thought I already went over this? 

OK, so I'm a slow learner.

If love requires an attachment, if attachment to transient things causes suffering when those things die or disappear, then suffering is the natural consequence of love.  In actuality, there is no freedom from suffering as long as we love things.

If one takes the issue of nirvana and how it may be reached, it's not perfection that dharma says that's necessary.  What is necessary, according to dharma, is "enlightenment".  IOW, dharma doesn't say that during our lifetime we need to have this perfect detachment from all suffering but, instead, it says that one must become "enlightened".  Whether or not it's possible to become fully detached during one's lifetime, unless one is a bodhissatva (in Tibetan Buddhism, one who sticks around after reaching nirvana to help others), I cannot say, but I have never read or heard it stated as a requirement.

 

And this introduces yet another question -- why is suffering something we seek refuge from? 

Maybe you like suffering, but it's not high on my list. 

If I take what Jesus appears to have taught, he also takes the issue of suffering very seriously and, as a matter of fact, he seemingly suggests that it may be a defining issue as to whether one goes to heaven or not if we look at his separation of the sheep and goats analogy. 

The issue of "suffering" covers really a very wide swath.  It forces followers of dharma to be concerned about themselves, other people, and animals as well.  It establishes a moral code that parallels Jesus' teachings to love on another-- even your enemy.  And if one agrees with the teachings about karma, there's rewards and punishments in regards to one's actions or failure to act. 

Even if one questions the teachings on nirvana and karma, which I do, the direction is still much the same-- nothing in essence has changed as far as our direction is concerned.  Therefore, "suffering" is really not the only issue covered by dharma, much like it's not the only issue covered by the gospels.  And, btw, it was really not the main issue as to why I became increasingly more interested over time in studying dharma, and also probably why many Christians may have sought out an understanding of Christian teachings for differing reasons. 



Shalom,
Vern   

[Acumen]

Vern,

If I take what Jesus appears to have taught, he also takes the issue of suffering very seriously and, as a matter of fact, he seemingly suggests that it may be a defining issue as to whether one goes to heaven or not if we look at his separation of the sheep and goats analogy.

And this is part of the reason I question the Buddhist inclination to be free from it.

The issue of "suffering" covers really a very wide swath.  It forces followers of dharma to be concerned about themselves, other people, and animals as well.  It establishes a moral code that parallels Jesus' teachings to love on another-- even your enemy.  And if one agrees with the teachings about karma, there's rewards and punishments in regards to one's actions or failure to act.

If suffering induces a concern for others and establishes a code of morality, then why get rid of it?

Therefore, "suffering" is really not the only issue covered by dharma, much like it's not the only issue covered by the gospels.  And, btw, it was really not the main issue as to why I became increasingly more interested over time in studying dharma, and also probably why many Christians may have sought out an understanding of Christian teachings for differing reasons.

It may not be a main issue, but it's an issue nonetheless.  Again, why the need to be free from it?

[metis]

If suffering induces a concern for others and establishes a code of morality, then why get rid of it?

Here's where there's an irony.  Is suffering bad?  Not necessarily.  When you suffered through lectures and homework, was that "bad"?  When you had to pay taxes, was that "bad" (oops, may I should have asked another question  )?  When you had to save money instead of spending it on something you really wanted, is that "bad"?  When you read my posts, is that "bad"?  (Dang-- another slip-up!)

Here again is where a word needs to be defined or clarified.  Take any action, and it's actually how we perceive that action that makes us feel "good" or "bad".  One could, as Malcolm X did, use prison to become more enlightened and change for the better.  One could use adversity to actually toughen one up.  One may take their own money and donate it to charity and have the joy of helping others. 

Suffering is a state of mind.  Remember the statement: when life hands you lemons, make lemonade?  It's this attitude that helps to ameliorate, and maybe eliminate, real suffering.  And didn't Jesus teach much the same?  Didn't he say that people will suffer but that we should not worry?  As you're undoubtedly aware of, one of the reasons why Christianity grew so rapidly in the 2nd century was at least somewhat because there were many who risked their own lives to help the sick and do other things that sometimes put their life at risk.

So I don't see Jesus' sayings and the Buddha's sayings as being on opposite ends of the continuum (I'm not implying that you do).  Sometimes people mistakenly see Buddhism as a "just put up with it" kind of philosophy.  It isn't.  As HHDL has repeatedly stated, the main purpose of dharma is to create a more loving and compassionate people.  It's this, along with putting "suffering" into its proper place, that Buddhism is mostly about. 

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Vern,

Suffering is a state of mind.  Remember the statement: when life hands you lemons, make lemonade?  It's this attitude that helps to ameliorate, and maybe eliminate, real suffering.  And didn't Jesus teach much the same?  Didn't he say that people will suffer but that we should not worry?  As you're undoubtedly aware of, one of the reasons why Christianity grew so rapidly in the 2nd century was at least somewhat because there were many who risked their own lives to help the sick and do other things that sometimes put their life at risk.

Amelioration and elimination are different notions.  Jesus certainly taught we are to help people during times of suffering, but nowhere does he teach that we ought to eliminate it or to liberate others from it entirely.  Even Paul considered it a necessity for the development of the church.  Buddhism, on the other hand, teaches a pursuit of freedom from suffering.  So my question remains, "if suffering produces a genuine concern for others, and it helps to establish moral codes, then why abolish it completely?"

-Acumen

[metis]

Jesus certainly taught we are to help people during times of suffering, but nowhere does he teach that we ought to eliminate it or to liberate others from it entirely.  Even Paul considered it a necessity for the development of the church. 

I tend to differ with you.  First of all, I don't think Paul really wants people to suffer, but essentially tells people they will suffer because of their beliefs and actions.  Secondly, isn't heaven supposedly the release from suffering, and didn't Jesus desire that for his followers? 

Buddhism, on the other hand, teaches a pursuit of freedom from suffering.  So my question remains, "if suffering produces a genuine concern for others, and it helps to establish moral codes, then why abolish it completely?"

It's not the suffering that necessarily does it, but how we react to suffering.  To me, suffering will not be abolished during one's lifetime, but to a Buddhist who thinks that there is nirvana as the light at the end of the tunnel, they do think that suffering will come to an end-- but only then (the exception is the bodhissatva in the Tibetan tradition).



Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

I tend to differ with you.  First of all, I don't think Paul really wants people to suffer, but essentially tells people they will suffer because of their beliefs and actions. 

Paul believed that suffering was a required in order to spread the message.

Secondly, isn't heaven supposedly the release from suffering, and didn't Jesus desire that for his followers?

Yes, but the difference is that, in the end, God will establish a place free from rebellion, wickedness, harm, and suffering.  It is not our earthly duty to be free from suffering.  It is God's promise that He will eliminate it as a consequence of subduing death.

It's not the suffering that necessarily does it, but how we react to suffering.  To me, suffering will not be abolished during one's lifetime, but to a Buddhist who thinks that there is nirvana as the light at the end of the tunnel, they do think that suffering will come to an end-- but only then (the exception is the bodhissatva in the Tibetan tradition).

Oh, so you are a different kind of buddhist?

[metis]

Paul believed that suffering was a required in order to spread the message.

Could you quote the verse(s) that say as such?  I don't remember anything that Paul says that states that one MUST suffer in order to follow Jesus.

Yes, but the difference is that, in the end, God will establish a place free from rebellion, wickedness, harm, and suffering.  It is not our earthly duty to be free from suffering.  It is God's promise that He will eliminate it as a consequence of subduing death.

And most Buddhists will say that the same holds true with nirvana, but minus the deity.  Again, dharma says it's enlightenment that may end up with a person reaching nirvana-- not freedom from suffering.

Oh, so you are a different kind of buddhist?

Who said I'm a Buddhist?



Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Could you quote the verse(s) that say as such?  I don't remember anything that Paul says that states that one MUST suffer in order to follow Jesus.

1 Thess 3:3 "So that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You know quite well that we were destined for them."

Roman 8:35-36  "Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

Colossians 1:24  Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

The last passage is rather interesting because the church "body of Christ" has a destined amount of suffering it must endure.  Paul, by suffering in the flesh, contributed to the sum total of the destined suffering.

And most Buddhists will say that the same holds true with nirvana, but minus the deity. 

Right, but this is at the expense of attachments known as love.  In heaven, attachments aren't sacrificed to be free of suffering.

Who said I'm a Buddhist?

My apologies, I thought you were a Buddhist-Jew.

-Acumen

[metis]

acumen:

>>e last passage is rather interesting because the church "body of Christ" has a destined amount of suffering it must endure.  Paul, by suffering in the flesh, contributed to the sum total of the destined suffering.<<

Again, we're reading the same thing and seeing something different.  I don't think that Paul is saying that followers MUST suffer as much as he's saying that many of them WILL suffer and that they should view this as a gift of sorts.  On the other hand, I do think you're correct in saying that he appears to believe that the church will actually become more sanctified through sufering. 


 
>>ght, but this is at the expense of attachments known as love.  In heaven, attachments aren't sacrificed to be free of suffering.<<

You seem to forgetting that love and compassion are not considered attachments.




>> apologies, I thought you were a Buddhist-Jew.<<

No apology needed because sometimes my wording sometimes may imply as such.  I will occasionally use the communal "we" in the context of those of us who use dharma quite a bit, but some may take the "we" as to be stating that I'm Buddhist.  I probably should be more careful with my wording.

The reason I don't call myself "Buddhist" is that I simply question too many basic teachings such as rebirth, reincarnation, nirvana, and karma (when it's applied to rebirth).  The irony is that I could call myself a "Buddhist" since it's very much allowed to question such things.  However, I really am not going to commit myself to the Buddhist community, and I'm quite at home in the Jewish community.  When I finally told my rabbi that I was essentially non-theistic, he was not only very accepting of it, but encouraged me not to hide it.  And I very much enjoy the Torah studies and the services and I get a great deal out of them, so I could never see myself leaving voluntarily.

Shalom,
Vern 

[SquirleyWurley]

I have a tendency to approach traditions/stories/religions/systems with an eye towards distilling some 'core' issues/themes/identified problems/attempted solutions.

The 'key' story I see in Buddhism has to do with this Prince who was sheltered from suffering, and when exposed to various forms of it all around him, became profoundly troubled, and tried to approach the subject through extreme fasting, etc., but eventually decided that wasn't helpful (brought it's own problems and didn't address his concerns) -- and that this lead to the identification of the '4 noble truths' -- that's the context....  There is needless/useless suffering/anguish, We can try to observe whatever causes there may be, if we can identify causes we may be able to take some sort of approach that reduces or eliminates the effects, there is a path one can take to address needless/useless suffering/anguish.  Three poisons can be observed as causing much suffering: intense aversion (fear/panic or anger/hatred) are toxic and have all sorts of consequences, greedy clinging to things is problematic, and so is ignorance/confusion.  If we can look at these poisons perhaps we can see how they arise and develop insight in cutting off some of these processes at the root.

The point is, there's this incredibly unsatisfactory condition, needless/useless anguish/suffering (dukka implies all of this, 'suffering' isn't a great translation, from what I understand), and we can try to look at it squarely, clearly, with the energy of our attention, and also with a sort of relaxed openness, and develop insight and deal more effectively with it, as human beings engaged in the lives of others.

[metis]

One can argue that the story of Old Sid is unimportant as to whether it actually occurred or not since it's the teachings, especially the FNT and the EP, that really are at the center of dharma.  Much of rest is overshadowed by these teachings, including certain concepts such as karma, nirvana, rebirth, etc.  Even though these latter items are certainly found within the Pali Canon and the sutras, they are really not the centerpieces of dharma.

[jacknky]

Perhaps we should meditate daily on these issues for a few years and get back together later.

[metis]

Perhaps we should meditate daily on these issues for a few years and get back together later.

There's a time to meditate and a time to get work done, the latter of which my wife reminds me of all the time. 

[jacknky]

"There's a time to meditate and a time to get work done, the latter of which my wife reminds me of all the time."

LOL.