Buddhism = Shifting expectations to reality?

Kikujiro

Meaning, once you know imperminence and all it's forms including death, disease and imperfection, you come to expect its occurrence as the norm?

Therefor the shock that really causes suffering is no longer present? Unless you come to expect that too? (which would make shock not very shocking)

Rain

I'm not sure if you come to "expect" it as the norm, but rather you simply accept it. We die, that's reality, but that reality is not here yet (you and I are both alive, and whomever else in our lives is also alive, so that's what is here and now) so best not to dwell on it.

Expectations are what actually end up causing more suffering than not in the long run, they aren't something you want to become attached to. For example, I expect something good to happen, and something bad instead occurs. Had I simply examined reality rather than projecting expectations, I could have avoided the disappointment generated.

On the reverse, if you expect something bad to happen, and instead something good happens, often we become elated and attached to the excitement/positive rush of feelings as well, which is often just as bad. We should remain grounded in what is.

Expectations are often rooted in pessimistic or optimistic outlooks, but Realism is really the middle-ground between the two. Best to simply accept things as they are, fact by fact, and let the rest fall away as best we can.

Kikujiro

Rain wrote: »

So best not to dwell on it.

The teaching to contemplate your death from the buddha makes me disagree. Dwelling on death let's you get used to and through all your ideas of what it is. Not dwelling on it doesnt.

Rain

It depends.

When I say best not to dwell on death, I more or less refer to the death of those around us who pass on. When someone dies, dwelling on it does no good. Recognizing the impermanence of life, however, is different than dwelling on death or grief itself.

Thinking about our own death is a way of contemplating impermanence, sure. It's more about recognizing the ways in which the bodies are merely temporary though rather than dwelling on the process of death itself --however that's just a personal opinion, again as I mentioned "it depends" because some people may become over-attached to dwelling on death and what occurs thereafter (I'm notoriously bad for that, for example ).

But again, none of this is the point... the point is that it's not about setting up expectations. It's simply about accepting reality. Buddhism is more about abandoning expectations, not setting them up.

Edit: I should add... At the end of the day, I only provide you with one person's personal outlook I am not the be-all and end-all of anything. I just am providing some input from my view.

Namaste~

aMatt

Rain wrote: »

When I say best not to dwell on death, I more or less refer to the death of those around us who pass on. When someone dies, dwelling on it does no good. Recognizing the impermanence of life, however, is different than dwelling on death or grief itself.

To me it sounds like you're saying not to lament the death. Not to get stuck wailing and deeply regretting and so forth ("why oh why did he have to die" etc). I mean this only as a relation to the teachings, where your word dwelling seems dissonant, because we can dwell with detachment about the nature of life and death by observing the dead and the live.

But I think your observations are spot on. Getting stuck in a person's mortality does little good for anyone.

With warmth,

Matt

RichardH

There is always something new appearing from outside the bounds a given normality-set., like a speeding bus, or a brain tumor. Something unexpected.

Drop

Kikujiro wrote: »

Meaning, once you know imperminence and all it's forms including death, disease and imperfection, you come to expect its occurrence as the norm?

Therefor the shock that really causes suffering is no longer present? Unless you come to expect that too? (which would make shock not very shocking)

I see it as all being about "painting values" on reality rather than seeing any particular truth. When proper values are brushed onto your canvas of reality, you will see a more accurate picture.

When you "accept" something like "there is suffering", you stop painting it jet black and tone your heart's reaction down so that more thinking can go into getting the colors real.

But there is a strong danger in accepting any thought concerning a negative aspect of reality. That danger is subtly felt by most people. It is the danger that through acceptance, you cause the truth of it to be unavoidable. Once unavoidable, you then defend that it is truth and should be accepted. But interestingly, often, only often, not always, one can alter what will be true by accepting what isn't quite true currently. This is the primary focus of most politics and public persuasion.

The social question is whether it is wiser to accept a negative truth such as to lessen its torment or is it wiser to deny the truth of it so as to bring about the fallacy of it.

FoibleFull

Kikujiro wrote: »

Meaning, once you know imperminence and all it's forms including death, disease and imperfection, you come to expect its occurrence as the norm?

Therefor the shock that really causes suffering is no longer present? Unless you come to expect that too? (which would make shock not very shocking)

If it was that simple, then pessimists would be enlightened!

So often when something shocks us, we get swept away with it, tumbled, bruised, disoriented, feeling out-of-control. The key does not lie in expecting that life will give us shocks, but instead in not getting swept away by our reactions to this ... we observe the shock, but then let it wash away downstream without taking us with it.

Drop

Kikujiro wrote: »

Meaning, once you know imperminence and all it's forms including death, disease and imperfection, you come to expect its occurrence as the norm?

Therefor the shock that really causes suffering is no longer present? Unless you come to expect that too? (which would make shock not very shocking)

It isn't the "shock". The problem arises from the impassioned struggle. The enlightenment is in realizing the commonness and thus less concern or worry about the issues - "It happens, big deal. Deal with it." "Things die. Get over it." "Shit happens. Keep a roll handy."

Rain

Drop wrote: »

"Shit happens. Keep a roll handy."

huh, apparently my dad's been studying Dharma longer than I have

Glow

Kikujiro wrote: »

Meaning, once you know imperminence and all it's forms including death, disease and imperfection, you come to expect its occurrence as the norm?

Therefor the shock that really causes suffering is no longer present? Unless you come to expect that too? (which would make shock not very shocking)

What you're describing sounds more like Greek Stoicism. For example, in Epictetus' Enchiridion:

With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.

There are many things I admire about the Stoics. However, this is one case in which I think the Buddha had a more nuanced view of human psychology. Whereas the Stoics encourage the elimination of suffering by means of mentally reframing the external event in such a way as to make us more dispassionate, the Buddha realized that things like death are causes of suffering, and that there is nothing wrong with that. From the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta:

Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects.

Put another way, Stoicism teaches one how to be okay with the external event. Buddhism, however, teaches one how to be okay with the internal event: suffering. IMO, Buddhism is a more compassionate route. For instance, if we experience grief at a loved one's death, instead of getting tangled into the attempt to extinguish our grief, we instead extinguish our resistance to that grief and accept it as an expression of our capacity to connect with others deeply.