Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
:Trying to end suffering: vs :Accepting suffering: ?
zenmyste
Veteran
What i would like to know is; 'How could Buddhism help someone who ''accepts suffering as a part of life therefore doesnt suffer much, because he doesnt dwell on his suffering, because he knows, understands, and accepts suffering as a natural part of Life..
I often wonder if ''trying to end our suffering can actually cause our suffering..''
What are your thoughts?
Thanks. x
I often wonder if ''trying to end our suffering can actually cause our suffering..''
What are your thoughts?
Thanks. x
0
Comments
Trying to end our suffering causes suffering if we cling to it.
By accepting suffering (seeing it for what it really is), we can maybe end suffering.
I don't know... Kinda winging it it at the moment.
I doubt any Buddhist here would disagree!
Trying to end our suffering can cause suffering, this is true, but then what have we got to lose? We're already suffering. Unless we don't see it yet.
Trying to end our suffering can only cause our suffering IF there is no proper way of ending it.
For example:
If your physical body is such that you are unfit, how can you possibly run 2.4km in 9 minutes? To do so is to cause yourself distress. Because you are using hard will to resist the body's conditions to achieve something that is impossible due to your current physical limitations.
HOWEVER... it does not mean that you will not be able to one day achieve 2.4km in 9 minutes. It just means there must be a proper of training your body gradually. It is not simply a matter of mere will and determination to 'overcome' the body's limitation, this is not possible. Determination, effort, is important but it is not the only requisites.
Instead, you must treat the problem like a doctor: examine the problem, the cause of the problem, the end of the problem, the way to end the problem.
Likewise the Buddha's way of four noble truths: suffering, cause of suffering, end of suffering, way to end suffering.
In the same way, if you try to use hard will to overcome suffering, you will only cause yourself distress. Why? You are trying to resist your mental conditions to achieve something that is impossible due to your current mental limitations [i.e. your latent tendencies and conditions that produce afflictions].
We have to understanding that all experiences - physical or mental - including your suffering, is not arising due to agency or a controller or by hard will. They manifest due to dependent origination, due to causes and conditions, and therefore can only stop arising when the causes are removed. And there must be a proper way to remove those causes. And 'will' can only influence the outcome, it does not 'control' the outcome, i.e. determination to practice must be followed by the practice before seeing the outcome.
Therefore, there is a gradual method of training which leads to wisdom, which leads to tranquility, which leads to release of these very afflictions. What is it? It is the path of the Noble Eightfold Path.
One way of looking at it is that all existence is dukkha and liberation can mean one thing only; the end of suffering is the end of all existence, the end of the cycle of rebirth, extinguishment, nibbana.
The other way of looking at it is that liberation is here and now. Enlightened life is possible and it does not rely on faith in rebirth. (It doesn’t exclude such faith either though.)
Liberation is linked to realizing the emptiness of dukkha; and of the end of dukkha alike.
It’s Buddhism after Nagarjuna, which emphasizes emptiness.
But that’s just theory about the ultimate goal of Buddhism.
The practical side to it could be that there is a third option; not trying to make suffering go away, not accepting it either; but seeing through the dreamlike nature of it all and realizing the truth.
The Buddha's teaching is that liberation is both the ending of rebirth cycle, and the ending of suffering in the here and now. In fact, there cannot be one without the other - there is no end of rebirth without liberation here and now, no liberation here and now without end of rebirth. Thus it makes no sense to see nirvana is merely an after-life state.
An arhant who removes the afflictions of passion, aggression and delusion, has achieved liberation here and now, despite the continued experience of sense awareness and bodily functions. And after post-mortem where bodily aggregates ceased too, there is no more rebirth.
The former is called 'nirvana with residue', the latter is 'nirvana without residue'.
Nibbanadhatu Sutta
This was said by the Lord...
"Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and plain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.
"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all this is experience, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
"These bhikkhus, are the two Nibbana-elements."
Verse:
These two Nibbana-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stable, and unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.
Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being.
I don't think it's possible to realise the third Noble Truth without first realising the first Noble Truth.
I think the idea is to move away from speculation, which is rooted in present dukkha. Also, any speculation would by nature be phenomenal, and thus irrelevant.
Nibbana without residue: arhant no longer living, post-mortem state, no more rebirth.
'Maybe our desire/practice/search for happiness is what is keeping us that little bit unhappy and therefore we still 'seek' that little bit more
But the people who dont seek or dont have a practice seem to be the ones one are the normal happy ones.. (im not saying that everyone who isnt spiritual is happy but could it be that having a practice or belief or religion is what is keeping us from actually living life as it is and becoming normal again, just like we were before we started looking for happiness...
For me personally, that where i want to head. Back to where i was before buddhism. Before i asked question. When i didnt buy religous books, buddhists books, zen books and self help books. I want to get back to 'normal'
I want my non seeking mind back..
I believe meditation can help me with this.
Ive often thought of removing buddhism from my every day life and just focusing on Meditation because when i meditate, its the closest to how my mind was before i started seeking.. (if that makes sense..
First you accept you're suffering, then you let it go.
Some people only try to do one of the two, which won't work.
And it is also important to see that, while dependent origination is a key to the end of suffering, nothing has ever been caused or originated.
It seems the idea in Buddhism is about relating to pain. Pain is not suffering. Suffering results from our relation to pain. This is where mediation in priceless because it allows us to see and relate to our thoughts, the impermanence of our thoughts, and step back from reacting in old and familiar, suffering ways.
When we accept pain as part of life, without attaching to it as “us”, we can cultivate a new perspective towards it. For instance, depression. I can say “I am depressed” or I can say, “Hello depression, thanks for stopping by…” I can see it as my brain doing brain business. More often than not, it’s a result of something – aging, I’m going nowhere, I’ve done nothing, etc… Typical human worries about who I think I am or what I don’t have that I believe I need. All efforts of the ego to get back in the driver’s seat.
The first noble truth does not say that existence is pain, it says existence is suffering and suffering comes from craving, clinging, attachment, whatever word we like. It does not say pain is the problem. For me, and this is never easy, I try a sort of radical acceptance of all pain because the alternative – fighting it off, denying it, letting it take control – doesn’t work. Pain is rough but it never fails to teach me something and it’s always impermanent. When I don’t see pain but, instead, merely feel it, letting it take me wherever it pleases, then I’m at its mercy and will suffer.
As far as I can see, all my suffering comes from my inability to relate to pain and falling back into feeling the pain as me. It’s not me. Nor are my thoughts. Even when we’re in great pain, at some point our thoughts turn to “what’s for dinner?” This proves that whatever the pain is, it’s not permeating everything and indeed, there is room for us to relate to pain, not identify with it. When I can step back and say to myself, “Ah, pain (displeasure, discomfort, anxiety, etc..), I wonder how it will manifest this time?” – I figure I’m taking a better approach.
Just like a fire, an illusory display, dependently arisen is empty of an origin... Etc.
For example, your son or daughter has died. Sorrow arises, grieve arises. Why? There is craving, attachment, even a sense of possessiveness ("this is MY child"), so you feel the loss. If it were someone elses' son or daughter, you might feel something but certainly not as much as if it were "YOUR" child.
Now, to cope with that sorrow or grieve, you may try your best to "accept your situation". You may also try to think positively like maybe now he/she is in a better place, etc. But as long as craving/attachment/possessiveness is there, there is suffering. It is something that requires time to heal, some counselling, inner acceptance, coming to terms with things, etc.
BUT... If you had no craving, no attachment, no sense of I, me or mine, then sorrow Will Not even arise to begin with. No acceptance is even required when there never was a sorrow or suffering or negative situation "to be accepted".
As I mentioned on another thread, the subtle teachings are superceded by the basic teachings, not the other way round. The subtle teachings exist because the basic teachings are difficult for most of us.
In any case, even if you practice "total acceptance" or "letting go" and relinquish sense of self, nonetheless if you do not follow the noble eightfold path, do not develope wisdom, there will not be the thorough and complete end of craving and suffering. Merely trying to letting go without developing wisdom is insufficient as ignorance is the root of afflictions. Even if you are able to let go today, tomorrow another issue may again incite craving, anger, delusion, possessiveness, attachment, sorrow, fear, suffering. The intention to let go is correct but must go along with wisdom that penetrates into the non-dual and empty nature of whatever arises, then naturally everything is self-released.
The buddha did not say "the path to the termination of craving and end of suffering is acceptance". From the first day of his teaching career he taught the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path which stresses the threefold development of morality, samadhi and prajna wisdom.
I totally agree with "the subtle teachings are superceded by the basic teachings", and the most basic and foundational teachings of Buddha begins with the four noble truths and eightfold path, the three characteristics, dependent origination and so on. This path is already a complete path of its own, yet because people do not understand its subtle implications, many "subtle teachings" arose to fill in the gaps. I have written a long piece on this but will disgress as I do not wish to go off-topic.
Suffice to say, it is not right to tell people "just accept everything as it is then there is no suffering", for as long as there is no development of prajna wisdom, whatever we practice, even if we are able to attain deep states of samadhi, are not sufficient for liberation.
Because deep down we don't believe it will work. That's what zazen and the subtle teachings are for, to convince us that this is the correct choice. Yes and no. In an ultimate sense, yes. But from the point of view of a seeker, a choice must be made between selfishness and selflessness. All the teachings can do is explain why that's the correct choice.
And in letting go of the breath, we understand that no one was ever watching the breath and no one was breathing. Thus realisation and acceptance become effortless. There is no one left to resist the uncontrived life that ignorance led us to believe was best resisted.
There is still karmic residue in this first stage of nibbana, but the residue dissolves in this life, not after it.
(this story can also be told on a parallel level, in terms of the flow of kundalini. Or it can be told in terms of dependent origination.)
I am talking about no-craving as the natural result of the path of wisdom, or wisdom and samadhi co-joined, where one penetrates into the self-less, impermanent, stressful, empty and self-releasing nature of the aggregates. As a result of wisdom, there is no craving.
If one were to practice letting go of craving, "accepting totally" etc, it will be a contrived effort or even an impossible task. For simple issues it may be easy to let go. But if it is something or someone you invested a lot of attachment to? For example your spouse you lived with for an entire life suddenly passed away? There is this "unwillingness" to let go, it does not seem natural or even possible to let go because the entire body is "wired" or "imprinted" to hold. This is how strong our latent tendencies are before liberation.
But for someone who has penetrated with wisdom and destroyed the taints, there is no craving, there is no need to even intentionally "accept things". There never was an investment of attachment to a something, so its "loss" is never felt, it has never become an issue which needed "acceptance". Its loss or presence became irrelevant. One is no longer affected by the eight winds of gain/loss, etc etc. There is simply a perpetually self-releasing of the aggregates without any identification or posession, all is effortless.
That is why the thorough and complete solution to suffering is still the noble eightfold path. Acceptance on its own will not be able to destroy the taints in the way the noble eightfold path can.
As long as a path leads to the development of morality, samadhi and wisdom in the manner of the noble eightfold path, it is in line with what I am saying.
Perhaps morality becomes an essential aspect of this path as in this process we see the interconnectedness of everything and compassion/ethical action naturally arises from this. There is no need to practice contrived morality and contrived meditation in the hope of arriving at some wisdom later on. It is all already present, the 8-Fold Path is followed in the here and now.
I am just exploring here, trying to make sense of it myself. I am starting to question the whole edifice of Buddhism, and being more drawn to teachers like Eckhart Tolle amnd Adyashanti. But perhaps the edifice is helpful. I don't profess to be able to do what I've written above, far from it..
It is possible to see the process without seeing the intellect as central to it, or understanding as its driving force.
In the best of all possible worlds, this one, there had to be suffering so that there could be nirvana. Or, samsara is a gift that takes a long time to be appreciated. So long, and Thanks for All the Fish (1984), Douglas Adams
Such an experience, as I pointed out earlier, can still be a form of peak experience. It only becomes effortless as a result of realization or insight.
Therefore even though the practice of letting go and dropping is vital, there is also a need to contemplate and realize anatta directly as PrairieGhost mentioned.
On this aspect of insight, see stage 4 and 5 of http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
As for Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti and other Advaita teachers, they used to interest me very much and my entire path was aligned with that of advaita. I was reading mostly advaita books for a long period of time. But when I realized the deeper aspects of insights, my interest turned to Buddhism, as had Thusness. Nowadays I am reading Buddha's discourses which probably would not be of much interest and relevance to the old me who was still pursuing the advaita path then.
I am however not suggesting that advaita is no good or unimportant... As it can indeed be relevant and helpful (as it had for me) depending on our practice, and our practice changes according to our insights and understanding.
A related question: do you think it is possible to follow a structured approach, say doing some meditations on specific topics (like Lamrim) or purification or visualisation practices and at the same time practice this simple path of being in the moment and accepting what arises? It would seem there is no need for the former, so for me there is a problem integrating the two, and as I get lost in structures and small details and frankly ridiculous-sounding stuff that has more to do with belief, I am drawn towards these neo-advaita teachers - the main reason being simplicity and also a certain positive emphasis (Self) rather then negative (suffering, emptiness etc). But from one point of view, even though we may have an insight into the ultimate truth, we still need to purify and do work on the relative. Psychologically, failure to do so might account for things like teachers' ethical scandals, where they may have a deep insight into emptiness, but their attachments and fixations remain untouched. The other point of view is that it's not necessary. What do you think? Does acceptance and realising impermanence is enough to get rid of those unskilful habits?
And which was the bit you mentioned where @PrairieGhost talks about directly realising anatta?
Actually, in my view, ultimately, realising anatta, emptiness, and so on, have nothing to do with it. Just more thoughts passing, assigning importance to themselves, letting themselves go. There's no difference between samsara and nibbana, except where it matters.
Thoughts were always just thoughts, rivers just rivers, mountains just mountains. The Tao Te Ching goes deeper than Buddhism in this final matter. Technical designations prepare us, but are ultimately anathema to unbinding, because the Tao is not an empty image or causal system, it is not an absence or an abundance; the Tao is a drunken sage dancing on a cliff edge above white water, the Tao is a studied diagram of a bird, that grows feathers and takes flight before turning to water and falling in a million mirrored raindrops on your upraised face. Sober objectivity is the final vanity of those not yet prepared to give their blood and wings and thirst to the great way. ... ... http://www.taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm
No essence exists, but the essence of The Tao is profoundly real.
We could search for knowledge of existence or non-existence till the end of time,
and never admit in our hearts that the world is real, that there is no
limit to what it asks from us, and that it offers us nothing in return.
Dare we accept this offer? It's the only one we'll get. It's the only one worth taking.
Sorry for the late reply - difficult to reply from camp as my only internet is phone on weekdays.
It is possible, but I myself am not very inclined to Lamrim or visualization practice. First of all I cannot comment on Lamrim as I do not know much about it, and I am not really good at visualization, not really drawn to that kind of practice.
My path has always been direct path, direct contemplation which leads to direct realization. More on my path in my e-book: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
Emptiness and no-self is only 'negative' when understood wrongly. The luminous clarity, presence, is not denied in emptiness or no-self but only correctly understood. It is a natural progression which leads to greater freedom and release.
If you are keen on advaita, as I used to, then I recommend practicing self-inquiry which is the path to direct self-realization. This is the path Ramana Maharshi took and teach, Ch'an Master Hsu Yun took and teach, many Zen masters took and teach, Eckhart Tolle took but didn't teach (even though self-inquiry led to his own realization, it is a puzzle he did not focus on teaching that), and Adyashanti took and teach.
My book dedicates a considerable portion to that practice.
Even self-realization however should not be understood as the 'end of the path'.
Lastly, habitual tendencies do get attenuated, reduced, and eventually eliminated. But it requires very deep realization and practice, not just a shallow awakening. We will notice that even after an initial awakening into no-self, karmic tendencies can still arise. The habitual latent tendencies are gradually removed through a combination of insight and tranquility in tandem. This is why the Buddha taught four stages of enlightenment, and do not lose diligence prior to complete liberation or think you have completed your path prematurely despite some insight or realization.
Four stages of enlightenment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment