Is suffering always bad?
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
Greetings, compassionate Sangha,
I apologize if this has been covered before, if so, please let me know where.
I realize now that I asked the wrong question in my earlier thread “Is the ego always bad?” http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/21554/is-the-ego-always-bad
The question I should have asked is the subject line of this current thread.
Since the purpose of Buddhism is ultimately to eliminate suffering completely, it appears that the Buddha felt that all suffering is bad.
But is it true that all suffering is bad? Maybe some suffering is necessary in order to spur us on to greater achievements. After all, the Buddha didn’t leave his cushy palace to seek enlightenment until he witnessed the suffering of old age, sickness, and death.
In a more mundane sense, we know that an ordinary person who lives a rather comfortable, spoiled life, who never has to work for anything, is unlikely to expend effort honing his intelligence, skills, gifts etc. than someone who has a harder, less charmed life that contains more suffering and deprivation.
Also, in the arts, there is this idea that the suffering starving (and maybe even suicidal) artist tends to produce more inspired, authentic art than the less talented hack who has succeeded by pandering to the crowd and thus has things quite easy (of course this may be more myth than reality).
And of course compassion springs directly from suffering. The sight of someone else’s pain, for instance, might awaken the seeds of compassion within me, because I recognize he is suffering, and I have suffered myself, so I can make a connection.
Of course, overwhelming suffering is an evil that must be eradicated, but I wonder if some small doses of suffering are necessary for our spiritual (as well as intellectual and artistic) development. If so, maybe we shouldn’t rush to eliminate it completely?
But most likely, I am just misunderstanding something about Buddhism...hence my question. 
Comments
The best lessons I learned from life were when I suffered...at least a bit.
I think you're compartmentalising the word 'suffering' which actually has been acknowledged as a poor, insufficient and inadequate translation of 'Dhukka'.
'Suffering' is, in and of itself, not bad. It's our attitude to suffering, that is found wanting.
You have to understand the 4 Noble Truths in their entirety to understand that your question is disjointed. You cannot isolate the concept of suffering from the remainder of the Truths.
What the Buddha meant by suffering is we suffer because we cling and grasp certain concepts, and hinder our own progress by recoiling and being averse to other situations.
It's our clinging and aversion we need to change.
As the saying goes, "Pain happens. Suffering is optional."
ajahnchah.org/book/Four_Noble_Truths1.php
So why then is cessation of suffering the goal of Buddhist practice?
Because it's our APPROACH to suffering that causes the pain.
By "suffering" do you mean dukkha, or something else?
I mean dhukkha. (I never know where to put the 'h'. Have 2, for good measure!
. )
Ah fantasy dharma . . .
Ultimately the natural arisings are more attuned or resonate with the unimpeded natural at ease state. Even in inevitable dukkha, we are more at ease . . . more like a Real Buddha, rather than a fantastical super being
I don't think the Buddha ever said "suffering is bad". He just said it's unnecessary. Just because someone learned something via suffering, does not mean it could not have been learned some other way.
"Suffering" is a limited way of interpreting dukkha. Dukkha is bad, jerky slow flow, sukkha is easy flow. My dear Grandma passed away on July 2, suddenly and unexpectedly although she was 92. My heart was broken, and I sobbed with grief for the rest of the evening and when I talked about her the next day. But looking back I did not SUFFER for one nanosecond. I still feel the soft tenderness of the loss of her but there is no dukkha whatsoever. I just realized that a few days ago.
Maybe this is what is meant by 'dukkha = pain + resistance (Shenzin Young again). There was no resistance to her death (and really, how could one resist it in the first place?)
My Grandma's death is a different story from, for instance, the death of my child or grandchild, but I suspect that is only because I am not a fully enlightened being.
It's remarkable that the same 'thing' can happen to two different people and only one of them will experience suffering.
So in that vein, I don't see 'suffering' or dukkha as having any good value. Pain, loss; yes.
Suffering is not bad and the Buddha did not say that it were.
But it hurts. And what the Buddha did, was try to find a method by which dukkha / affliction did not affect him so much.
Especially since suffering is mostly created by our unrealistic longing for existence to be something else than what it is: that all things are impermanent, subject to dukkha and without self.
Bad it is not. It simply is what it is. We make it bad.
Thanks a lot everyone, I think I'm starting to get a handle on this dukkha thing. At least, I've learned how to spell it!
Next:
Existence is not a duck . . . or is it . . .
Emptiness is firm and form is emptiness - for beginners . . .
What is meant by dukkha is the clinging to our experiences whether they be good or bad. Clinging to bad experiences is obviously painful. Good experiences are also likely to cause pain if you expect them to last. Hence the phrase - All good things must end.
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. (SN 56.11)
The First Noble Truth with its three aspects is: "There is dukkha. Dukkha should be understood. Dukkha has been understood."
From a non Buddhist perspective and without wanting to break in anyway your harmony, I think there is inner suffering and outward suffering. A person who has to put a hard day's work with a clean conscience, or suffer from self denial and punishes his body in order to avoid evil desires like ascets do will find in the end inner peace. A person who indulges in pleasures will find in the end inner suffering.
The reverse is also true. You can punish your body and end up with suffering and you can have a balanced attitude towards your pleasures and attain inner peace.
The Buddha did not find Enlightenment when he tried the "punishing the body" option.
He became enlightened when he applied the "Middle Way" solution.
Inner suffering is in the attachment and craving you put into situations rather than in situations themselves.
>
How do you know enlightnment was not a consequence of the ascetic experience? Besides the middle way Buddha practiced was a very frugal one. Being a poor monk living in celibacy and being vegetarian may be far away from eating one grain of rice a day but it is still self denial. Also I saw in a documentary that the Dalai Lama does not watch entertainment on television, again self denial.
Look, @WanMin, it is not self-denial if you don't need certain things in the first place.
Learning to stick to the middle path, curbing attachment and craving to the extent that you need less of certain things is not the same as living a life of self-punishment and self-denial.
We have enough dukkha as it is to be the instigators of more dukkha unto ourselves.
@WanMin I don't think the Dalai Lama refusing to watch TV constitutes self denial. He likely sees it as a kind of poison.
Here is what self-denial means no point in discussing, since I didn't come here to break your harmony:
n.
1. the sacrifice of one's own desires; unselfishness.
2. an act or instance of restraining or curbing one's desires.
thefreedictionary.com/self-denial
To have less things one must deny the pleasure to himself.
Good awakenings and rebirths to everyone, just pretend I was never here.
No harmony broken but what you say can only apply here if the Dalai Lama got pleasure from watching tv instead of seeing poison in it.
The answer is neither denial nor over indulgence. Self denial is nhilism and just another extreme to avoid.
I mean, if the answer was self denial, he would have rotted under that tree.
As stated earlier suffering entails how we approach a situation. I think suffering should be understood in this way, one should suffer mindfully! If I realize a state I am in is suffering, realizing my anger, jealousy, depression, what have you, is causing my present suffering, as well as lending itself to future suffering (I am reinforcing certain habitual patterns) can give me pause, time to reflect and maybe in that moment I can decide not to continue that current state I am in. If I realize the things I do lead to my suffering, I can then mindfully begin to not do that which leads to suffering and begin to make choices that will foster happiness.
I think the Buddha looked around and saw the immense suffering this life entails. I think his goal was to end suffering.
I think we can learn much about ourselves when we go through hard or difficult situations.
Happiness is not about escaping life and it's inevitable pains but embracing everything in your life and being okay with it.
>
Because the Buddha told us it isn't.
>
No, the Middle Way he practised was exactly that: The Middle Way. Neither too frugal, not too excessive. He found a median balance, rather like Baby Bear's Porridge...
>
Not to a Monk it's not. It's liberating, peaceful and free from material things to cling to. That is why a man becomes a Monk. To release himself from the fetters of Daily suffering and free his mind. A Monk is one of the least 'self-denying' people you could find, They are fulfilled, content and harmonious....
>
I watch virtually no television at all; my mother does not possess a television, because she does not want one. Waste of time, and money.
That's not self-denial; that's freedom of choice of how wisely we spend our time.
I find interesting. I never looked at Buddhism as an Epicurean philosophy. This is not an insult since I mean Epicurean in the original meaning. "An ordinary food shall afford as much pleasure as the most sumptuous banquet; and bread and water are a charming meal if they are at hand when we are hungry and thirsty."- Epicurus
I still like sports on TV and they can be included in dharma, right? I get so excited about my teams and it is a study in 'the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat'.
Actually, it is closer to Stoicism.
"Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants."
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters."
(Epictetus)
Gosh you read my mind. I was actualy thinking that a while ago, I don't mean the quotes (I love Epictetus) but that I have been inclined to consider Buddhism closer to Stoicism rather than Epicureanism. Though now I would be confused since Epicureans saw happiness deriving from pleasure while Stoics from virtue.
Thank you. I don't want in any way to enter in an argument but I fail to see how self-denial can lead to nihilism. Seeing poison in something doesn't mean one cannot see pleasure, and if one sees both things one will still have to refrain if one doesn't want to consume the poison.
An important 'good suffering' is commitment; refuge in practice. We might call this delayed gratification/potential development.
To practice when suffering, or in dire straits, any desperate monkey mindling can go that way.
When life is dandy and we practice . . . that separates the 'help me three jewels' from the Buddhists.
. . . and now back to the easy stuff . . .
With my limited knowledge of the Dharma, most likely I should not have an opinion; but that has never stopped me before; so before I read the other responses, I going to say it.
Pain, anxiety, fear, hunger, and loneliness are good if they motivate me to action. If I have pain, I go to the doctor. When hungry, I eat. With anxiety or fear, I prepare. The weight room at my school has an Abraham Lincoln quote above the bench press, "I will prepare and some day my chance will come."
Suffering must be good as well because if I suffer, then I have not learned enough about the Dharma.
Agreed, no need for an argument but healthy debate can benefit both sides at least so far as to see an alternative view.
Self denial is nhilism because to deny the self is deny it's growth and nutrition which will lead to death of the body.
Things like eating, going to the bathroom or even awakening fly in the face of denying the self.
Self denial did not work for Sidhartha and he already knew indulgence didn't work. I think it's a good thing he found the middle way or he would have rotted instead of awakening to Buddha.
Suffering can be a goad to practice renunciation!! I don;t like to hear that either when I am suffering. Always seems a catch 22. Need to build better anti-mouse trap lol.
Does renunciation mean "giving up the world and leading a holy life" or "freedom from lust, craving and desires," or something similar?
I think it depends on the person and at what stage they are during their own practice.
A specific 'Renunciate' is one who has "given up the world and is leading a Holy Life" but to others, such as @Jeffrey or even me, it means determining to shed that which holds us back as laypeople.
Oh, I see. I remember this from when my brothers studied economics. Renunciation could be like what economists call opportunity cost. It is like when I studied algebra when I could have been making goo-goo eyes with a cute boy. Making goo-goo eyes would be the opportunity cost. The renunciation would be the decision to follow the path less traveled or another path. Is there a Buddhist word for the path not followed?
After reading the other responses, I think that suffering, the word I used for dukkha, is neither good nor bad or it is both or it is some third category. It is like the arrow, which both misses and then hits the monkey in the story of the arrow and the monkey.
>
Yes.
Samsara.
Both the Dali Lama and the Pope are technically penniless and have renounced worldly possessions, while actually living lives that only the rich or powerful get to enjoy. There is a difference between a beggar who gets to eat only if someone bothers to donate food that day, or a mother trying to make the milk last until next payday, and an important person like the Dali who is surrounded by people who take care of his every need. The same holds true for just about any monk attached to a large temple organization, so let's not get too hung up with appearances or the virtues of renouncing possessions.
Deciding to occupy your time with conversation and meditation and work instead of watching television is not the same thing as a family who can't afford cable or a television, or for that matter paying the electric bill. Should we tell them the problem is their desire for electric lights and a bit of escape from their daily struggle so all they need do is renounce such worldly things? So a monk decides to only eat one meal a day. Do we tell the mother who can't feed her children more than one meal a day that it's plenty, and that her problem is selfish desire for more than one meal causing her suffering and the suffering of her children?
You don't have to throw away your television sets in order to learn not to become attached to them. You don't have to give away all your possessions in order to learn not to become attached to them. You don't have to shave your head and become a monk to learn the way of non-attachment.
So to the OT of suffering always being bad, I'd answer yes and point to the suffering of the world. Yet, some of us can see where the suffering in our lives motivated us to grow as human beings, so I'd also have to say in my own case, some suffering was like nasty-tasting medicine, necessary for me to become what I am today. Afraid in this case I'm conflicted. I come back to just saying, "I don't know."
I'm sorry. I feel like I have been disrespectful. I must have asked an improper question.
Could I should have said "choice" or "alternative?" Would that be a better way to describe Renunciation, which must be the process of choosing between alternatives.
I can choose between paying the rent and paying the cable bill. If I pay the rent, then the cable bill is the path not taken.
I don't understand or at least I did not know that anyone can not choose samsara. I thought that samsara is a process that everybody experiences on the way to nirvana.
Whatever one chooses which is not wholesome, is opting for taking the 'wrong' path, or staying in Samsara. Taking an alternative route may still find us on that path, but it's like coal-walking. We try to touch the ground for as little time as possible, and with as little impact as possible.
There was no disrespect noted, and nor was any taken. You asked a simple and perfectly proper question, I gave a one-word answer. Maybe it was the incorrect answer!
.
The suffering of samsara woke me up. Suffering that I experienced and witnessed , gives me strong motivation to practice dharma. It convinced me that life precious and it is worth practicing dharma.
Sure debate is always beneficial. What confuses me here is that if there is a middle way between the absolute self-denial and complete indulgence in one's desires, then it seems to me the middle way would imply a certain amount of self-denial.
On the other hand I can understand Buddha may not have practiced real self-denial, by realizing the self does not exist. So in a liberated state like you have been tolding me, what seems self denial to me might not have been to him.
Nevertheless I'm pretty sure he practiced a lot of self-denial before, namely when he was learning with ascets.
@WanMin: The Middle Way does not imply self-denial in the sense of self-mortification, either physical or psychological, nor inflicting dukkha on yourself by any similar method of deprivation of any kind.
It implies training yourself, developing insight in such a way as to gradually shed the ignorance, the craving and attachment that are the real causes of our suffering.
Yes, the Buddha practiced "a lot of self-denial before, namely when he was learning with ascets," as you say, but he relinquished extreme ascetism because he realized the pointlessness of ascetic practices to transcend suffering.
Buddhism is life-affirming. Self-denial is not. Buddhism is about attaining a certain vision in life by which surplus of anything becomes superfluous, not about denying yourself joy and pleasure.
I found this interesting article on self-denial in different religions and how apparently a rightly understood Buddhism has no streak of self-denial in its doctrine. The article is food-related but I found it helps illustrate my point about the Buddhist viewpoint on self-denial in general.
The link to the article is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/selfdenial-is-it-good-for-you-6153066.html
I have pasted the portion on Buddhism, by Tibetan Buddhist monk Geshe Tashi:
"Self-denial, as a concept, does not really exist within Buddhism. This is much more within the Christian religious tradition. We use the term selflessness. The Buddha taught us there was no eternal inner being, but the mind and the body should be viewed as one, and to achieve a kind of enlightenment, we have to focus on changing our internal lives. In some ways, Buddhists are showing a form of devotion, in that we try to stay away from material possessions. Material possessions may bring some comfort in terms of our physical well-being, but in the long-term they bring us nothing but misery. There are some traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, and also in Japanese Shintoism, where the path to enlightenment can take an extreme form. Starvation is one method of achieving this, in some traditions, but the Buddha taught us specifically to take the middle path and find a balance in our physical and spiritual life. Starvation is not helpful in the development of the mental life, in the same way excessive luxury also prevents enlightenment. This idea of starvation to achieve enlightenment is often misunderstood and forms no part of mainstream Buddhist life. If we practised self-denial (in the Christian sense), we would be unable to experience the cessation of suffering because there would be no self to witness it."
Excuse me, but in one of your comments you said that you are not a Buddhist nor had any intention to become one.
You also have a tendency to bring misconceptions about Buddhism into your comments, especially to try to make it fit into what strikes me as a rather gloomy attitude to pleasure that you have displayed, and walk away in a huff if somebody points that fact out to you or contradicts your opinion.
You could find this comment by Thich Nhat Hanh helpful about Buddhism:
"It is true that the Buddha taught the truth of suffering, but he also taught the truth of 'dwelling happily in things as they are.' To succeed in the practice, we must stop trying to prove that everything is suffering. In fact, we must stop trying to prove anything."
@WanMin
Thanks for understanding the difference between debate and animosity. Too many don't. You are right in your last post and Dharmamom explained the rest better than I can.
@dharmamom
Exactly.
But throwing away the television set might be a very positive step if one is addicted to TV.
OK - as an "explorer", I'm exploring here. Wikipedia tells me:
quoting from "Foundations of Buddhism" by Rupert Gethin (Oxford University Press 1998, p61).
As one whose spirituality is founded in Christianity (and gratefully sees the Dalai Lama's confirmation that such roots are helpful in Buddhism and should not be thrown away), I have relied on the advice:
That, to me, is what's bad - obsessing, resisting. I am grateful for both physical and emotional pain as they show me something is wrong, there is something I need to resolve. Others may have read "The Gift of Pain" by Paul Brand and Philip Yancey which explains how, once a cure for leprosy was found, Paul Brand realised that the ongoing problems with former lepers was caused by the fact that they could not feel physical pain and therefore were unable to protect their bodies from harm in the way that most can.
When I don't fret but accept where I am and trust in the process, I grow. To me, this does not mean suffering has gone but that I feel gratitude for it - it feels satisfactory to suffer rather than otherwise. If I did not make mistakes, how would I learn? And if I did not suffer, how would I know I had made a mistake?
Please, take what you like and stomp on the rest.
Dharmamom I have no intention in bringing disharmony to the group, and since I see in your last paragraph you are already entering acusatory mode and making things personal, what can I do but flee to avoid confrontation?
Besides it may be that we are playing withd words, I already posted the definition of self-denial:
n.
1. the sacrifice of one's own desires; unselfishness.
2. an act or instance of restraining or curbing one's desires.
thefreedictionary.com/self-denial
And here is the definition of selfless:
adj.
having little concern for oneself; unselfish.
thefreedictionary.com/selfless
Besides reading your comment of Christianity I understand you are also misinformed about that tradition since there is not even such a thing as starvation in the Christian perspective, while some radical ascets may have practiced anorexia by receiving only communion and feeding on nothing else, they were still eating something.
Refusing to do things that are not good for you is not self denial. For example: I don't eat French fries because they are not good for me. Here I am not self denying anything. I am just making a smart decision.
>
Actually, there is no such thing as starvation in any religious doctrine. However, every religion has a disciplined form of fasting. Many religions practise such a discipline and take it very seriously indeed. Ramadan for Islam, Lent for Christians, (though of course, as an ex-Christian myself, I know how very experienced they are at moving the goalposts and adapting certain teachings to suit themselves) Fasting during the month of "Shravan" for Hindus and the obligatory 6 days of the year, by Jews, to name but some... This link is very informative.
The quotation given by @dharmamom clearly states that she is quoting a Tibetan Lama, who quite rightly states that starvation is not the way to go.
This is the Dictionary definition of 'Fasting':
verb
gerund or present participle: fasting
abstain from all or some kinds of food or drink, especially as a religious observance.
"the ministry instructed people to fast"
>
>
be deprived of all or some kinds of food, especially for medical or experimental reasons.
"all patients were fasted before surgery"
>
As you will note, the dictionary uses the term 'to starve' and technically, a fast, correctly done, involves some starvation.
Please could you provide links to reference this? As the only religion (to my knowledge) to practice Holy Communion, is the Roman Catholic faith (being an ex RC myself) I have never heard of such a thing being practised by any sector of this faith.
Seems that while I have heard it many times in RC circles and even read about it, I'm convinced from the Desert Fathers tradition mainly, I'm now having difficulty in finding an explicit reference to that in the internet, Christian ascets who only fed on the communion. However I see many references to holy anorexia or anorexia mirabilis, which is probably a similar thing or the same, which Catherine of Siena is famous but it seems afected many women through the Middle Ages.
ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=1674555
asketikos.info/pdfarticles/corington.pdf
BTW- When you spoke about fasting in lent I thought you were Orthodox since it is not mandatory in RC which is where I come from by the way though I'm now attending a different Church.