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.
Define "peace" and "suffering"
These are very abstract terms and I was wondering if anyone can offer a reliable definition for either one. Almost every person is bound to have a distinct interpretation as to what these words mean. You could argue that you can only understand "peace" in relation to "suffering", and therefore they are inherently inseperable. what do you think?
0
Comments
Roughly everyhting that maintains your balance, and makes you feel as if something is on a scale from OK to ecstatic (and everything in between like 'fun', enjoyable', fulfilling'.....) is "Peace".
Both states are two sides of the same coin, though.
Transitory, ephemeral, impermanent.
As Kipling so capably put it,
"If you can meet with Triumph" (peace) " and Disaster" (suffering)
And treat those two impostors just the same"....
Realising both, and letting both arise, be, and pass, whilst remaining in a contented state, whichever one is occurring at the time, is true Peace and freedom from Suffering.
I don't know that the definition of peace is necessarily dependent on the idea of suffering. As Jeffrey pointed out, peace is a feeling, and therefore it exists on a fundamental physical level, without needing anything else to define it.
To illustrate how peace might not necessarily be the absence of suffering, I can envision the two things co-existing. For instance, you could walk across hot coals--an act which would no doubt entail physical suffering--yet still have a sense of total calm and well-being within you, because you've mastered the pain.
Or you could feel grief and sorrow (suffering) for a loved one who has passed on, yet still be at peace in your heart about that person's having progressed to a higher plane of existence (or whatever your belief is).
But more convincing than these logic-based arguments, for me, is the simpler and more obvious "proof" which flows from our own experience. Each of us knows, on a fundamental level, what peace and suffering are. When we are feeling peace, we know it; and the same with suffering.
That's my experience, anyway; for others it might be different.
Not all physical pain is suffering. Ask any masochist.
Pain does not have to lead to suffering. Treading hot coals is painful, that's all. Pleasure can cause suffering in the moment of its experience too.
Hiya
I think have a pretty clear understanding of these terms in a system's view sense, but its by no means complete.
Peace seems very related to concepts like equilibrium and suffering with conflict. But of course in terms of the way these primitive phenomenon condition abstract human phenomenon new aspects emerge.
In terms of:
I don't think so:)
Peace to me is on the same continuum as conflict, unlike suffering which seems in the continuum with happiness. Of course they entwine and connect as all things do:)
One can be at peace while suffering, it seems.
Peace and happiness to you,
Mat
Peace is absence of suffering.
Suffering is caused by clinging and wanting things to be another way despite the fact that this cannot always be fulfilled.
These terms, in the context of Buddhism, are neither abstract nor subject to personal interpretation. Nor can one understand the terms through instant intellectualization ... this is not the "stuff" of reading dictionaries or sifting through interpretations.
If you want to understand what "peace" and "suffering" mean, you must first thoroughly learn from a qualified lineage teacher (in-person or from a book). Then you must spend years comparing your observations and experience against the Buddha's teachings.
Buddhism is experiential, not intellectual. You have guides, but no one can "gift" the understanding to you. Buddhism requires commitment, dedication, curiosity, and above all ... patience. But it's the best journey you will ever take!