Gratuitous Suffering and The Four Noble Truths

Transmetaphysical

The other day, while contemplating The Four Noble Truths, I came across a problem. I thought about how gratuitous suffering doesnt seem to be accounted for by the Four Noble Truths. (This is a similar problem to the Problem of Evil, in which the sub-argument is the problem of gratuitous evil. i.e. We understand that most evil can be accounted for by Satan, evil-doers, etc. But what about random and unpurposeful instances of evil like babies dying at birth, natural disasters where innocents die, etc.)

So a similar problem comes up with the 4NT. If suffering is due to craving, attachment, and ignorance, what accounts for suffering when I step on a nail, or pop a tire on the freeway and crash? These are all random instances of suffering that seem to happen for no reason.

After a bit of thought, I have come up with a justification, but I would like to hear your responses to this.



.

SherabDorje

I think the Zen answer would be Stuff Happens. If I remember right, Vajrayana says it's pretty much all fruition of karma, but I myself tend to go with Stuff Happens.

patbb

there is no suffering. only events, only what is.

suffering is your reaction to what is.

patbb

Transmetaphysical wrote: »

If suffering is due to craving, attachment, and ignorance, what accounts for suffering when I step on a nail, or pop a tire on the freeway and crash? These are all random instances of suffering that seem to happen for no reason.

if you step on a nail and suffer, it is because you are attached to how your body felt or was like before it changed.
Craving for the sensation of pain not to be there.

federica

Trans, the suffering - as patbb so correctly puts it - is not within the circumstance. Your suffering is in your reaction to the circumstance.
Again, I am reminded of the analogy of the two arrows:
You step on a nail/pop a tyre on the freeway and crash.
This is the first arrow.
You fret, complain and worry about stepping on a nail/popping a tyre on the freeway and crashing.
This is the second arrow.
you have sufficient 'pain' within the first arrow, without subjecting yourself to the anxiety, wound and pain of the second one.

Sometimes, hyper-analysis is futile.
pointless to look at this first arrow and see the fine precise craftsmanship of the straight-as-a-dye shaft, the graceful soft tactile quality of the feathers, and the exquisite neat and finely balanced structure of the arrow-head.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is to just remove the arrow and be done with it.

Nios

"Ouch! MY foot! Why ME?"

Dukkha (suffering) is not physical pain.

Nios.

Valtiel

In short, your understanding of the Buddha's teachings and of dukkha are very shallow. You are misusing the word "suffering" as understood in Buddhism.

Transmetaphysical

patbb wrote: »

if you step on a nail and suffer, it is because you are attached to how your body felt or was like before it changed.
Craving for the sensation of pain not to be there.

This answers my question, thank you. This is similar to the explanation I came up with myself, but you put it much more clearly.



.

Transmetaphysical

Valtiel wrote: »

In short, your understanding of the Buddha's teachings and of dukkha are very shallow.

Ad hominem bare assertion fallacy.

You can't claim to know my level of understanding, especially based on one question. I have contemplated it further and on a deeper level, but this question applies to an elementary and basic understanding of it. I brought it up because I was thinking of explaining it to someone else who is going through hard times with a mom who just died. I wanted to share some thoughts with her, but I didnt want say "well, you're suffering because of craving, attachment, and ignorance." I felt that there would have to be another way to explain it.

You are misusing the word "suffering" as understood in Buddhism.

I understand it as unsatisfactory, painful, unpleasant, etc. Anything that is associated with burdens of the body and mind.

And as patbb nicely explained, suffering happens when we desire for things to be what they are not.

.

patbb

Transmetaphysical wrote: »

to someone else who is going through hard times with a mom who just died.

perhaps you could show her the beautiful Falling leaves story...

from Ajahn Brahm.

Probably the hardest of deaths for us to accept is that of a child. Most parents go through the obsessive demand for an answer to the question ‘Why?’. There is no specific answer but the following helped our understanding and acceptance. This is Ajahn Brahm’s parable:
A simple forest monk was meditating alone in the jungle in a hut made of thatch late one evening when there was a very violent monsoon storm. The wind roared like a jet aircraft and heavy rain thrashed against the hut. As the night grew denser, the storm grew more savage. First branches could be heard being ripped off the trees, then whole trees were uprooted by the force of the gale and came crashing to the ground with a sound as loud as the thunder.
The monk soon realized that the grass hut was no protection. If a tree fell on top of the the hut, or even a big branch, it would break clean through the grass roof and crush him to death. He didn’t sleep the whole night. Often during that night, he would hear huge forest giants smash their way to the ground and his heart would pound for awhile.
In the hours before dawn, as so often happens, the storm disappeared. At first light, the monk ventured outside the grass hut to inspect the damage. Many big branches, as well as two sizeable trees, had just missed the hut. He felt lucky to have survived. What suddenly took his attention though was not the many uprooted trees and fallen branches scattered on the ground, but the many leaves that now lay spread thickly on the forest floor.
As he expected, most of the leaves lying dead on the ground were old, brown leaves, which had lived a full life. Among the brown leaves were many yellow leaves. There were even several green leaves. And some of those green leaves were of such a fresh and rich green that he knew they could have only unfurled from the bud a few hours before. In that moment, the monk’s heart understood the nature of death.
He wanted to test the truth of his insight so he gazed up to the branches of the trees. Sure enough, most of the leaves still left on the trees were young, healthy green ones in the prime of their life. Yet although many newborn green leaves lay dead on the ground, some old, bent and curled up brown leaves still clung on to the branches. The monk smiled; from that day on, the death of a child would never disconcert him.
When the storms of death blow through our families, they usually take the old ones, the mottled brown leaves. They also take many middle-aged ones, like the yellow leaves of a tree. Young people die too, in the prime of their life, similar to the green leaves, and sometimes death rips from dear life a small number of young children, just as nature’s storms rip off a small number of young shoots. This is the essential nature of death in our communities, as it is the essential nature of storms in a forest.
There is no-one to blame and no-one to lay guilt on for the death of a child. This is the nature of things. Who can blame the storm? However, this helps us to answer the question of why some children die. The answer is the very same reason why a small number of young green leaves must perish in a storm.
The tide recedes but leaves behind bright seashells on the shore,
The sun goes down but gentle warmth still lingers in the sand,
The music stops but still it echoes on in sweet refrains,
For everything that passes, something beautiful remains.

Valtiel

Ad hominem bare assertion fallacy.

Not everything is a debate, an argument, a challenge, an attack, my dear. Do you blurt out random fallacies in casual conversation in-person, too? Do you have Fallacy Tourette's?

You can't claim to know my level of understanding, especially based on one question.

If suffering is due to craving, attachment, and ignorance, what accounts for suffering when I step on a nail, or pop a tire on the freeway and crash? These are all random instances of suffering that seem to happen for no reason.

Unless your words are not a representation of your understanding...

Everyone has pointed out the flaw in your argument. From a Buddhist perspective, these things are not suffering. Suffering is only craving. Events are not suffering in and of themselves.

I have contemplated it further and on a deeper level, but this question applies to an elementary and basic understanding of it.

There is not "elementary understanding" of it. Those things are not suffering from a Buddhist perspective, period. They are just life. Shit sometimes just happens.

Glow

Transmetaphysical wrote:

I brought it up because I was thinking of explaining it to someone else who is going through hard times with a mom who just died. I wanted to share some thoughts with her, but I didnt want say "well, you're suffering because of craving, attachment, and ignorance." I felt that there would have to be another way to explain it.

Is your friend suffering or simply grieving? Buddhism does not consider things like grief to be suffering. Grief is a natural expression of our capacity to register loss. From the Sallatha Sutta:

The Blessed One said, "When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.

"As he is touched by that painful feeling, he is resistant. Any resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him. Touched by that painful feeling, he delights in sensual pleasure. Why is that? Because the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person does not discern any escape from painful feeling aside from sensual pleasure. As he is delighting in sensual pleasure, any passion-obsession with regard to that feeling of pleasure obsesses him. He does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling. As he does not discern the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then any ignorance-obsession with regard to that feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain obsesses him.

"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it as though joined with it. Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it as though joined with it. Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it as though joined with it. This is called an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person joined with birth, aging, & death; with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is joined, I tell you, with suffering & stress.

"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.

"As he is touched by that painful feeling, he is not resistant. No resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him. Touched by that painful feeling, he does not delight in sensual pleasure. Why is that? Because the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns an escape from painful feeling aside from sensual pleasure. As he is not delighting in sensual pleasure, no passion-obsession with regard to that feeling of pleasure obsesses him. He discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, and escape from that feeling. As he discerns the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, and escape from that feeling, no ignorance-obsession with regard to that feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain obsesses him.

In the case of your friend, the initial pain (first dart/arrow) would be her feelings of loss. This is not a problem. Suffering would be a resistance to these feelings (the second arrow). In The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion, psychologist Christopher Germer created this equation for the Buddhist approach to suffering as:

Initial Pain * Resistance = Suffering

aMatt

Valtiel wrote: »

Not everything is a debate, an argument, a challenge, an attack, my dear. Do you blurt out random fallacies in casual conversation in-person, too? Do you have Fallacy Tourette's?

I ed!

RichardH

Transmetaphysical wrote: »

You can't claim to know my level of understanding.

I do.
Trans you said in a post (since deleted) that you only came to Buddhism a few months ago, and in another that you came via a crackpot's writings.

Yet you spout quotes and have the unmitigated gall (never thought I'd get to use that plum) to tell every one what the "The essence of the Dharma" is. Holy mackerel. Have a little bit of humility, or at least try and fake it.

Be a student, some of us have been students for DECADES and will continue to be, just inching along.

GuyC

Valtiel wrote: »

Not everything is a debate, an argument, a challenge, an attack, my dear. Do you blurt out random fallacies in casual conversation in-person, too? Do you have Fallacy Tourette's?

A classic example of the Sarcastic Ridicule Fallacy. :buck:

Valtiel

A classic example of the Sarcastic Ridicule Fallacy.

Empathic Victim Syndrome?

I have contemplated it further and on a deeper level, but this question applies to an elementary and basic understanding of it. I brought it up because I was thinking of explaining it to someone else who is going through hard times with a mom who just died. I wanted to share some thoughts with her, but I didnt want say "well, you're suffering because of craving, attachment, and ignorance." I felt that there would have to be another way to explain it.

I feel I should elaborate. As I said, the 4NTs are what they are. There is no "more basic understanding" of them. That being said, they are not for everyone and aren't always appropriate to bring up in every situation. I do not know to what extent your friend is already aware of these teachings, but it sounds like not at all. Given her mother just died, and that you are new to Buddhism yourself and seem to lack a good grasp on the core teachings, I would not insert yourself as into a teacher position with her. What she needs, is a good friend, a listener. The Buddha's teachings are too easily misunderstood and when someone who isn't greatly skilled in teaching tries to pass them along as guidance in an especially difficult time, it can be counterproductive. If SHE shows an interest, I would direct her to an actual teacher.

Transmetaphysical

Valtiel wrote: »

I feel I should elaborate. As I said, the 4NTs are what they are. There is no "more basic understanding" of them. That being said, they are not for everyone and aren't always appropriate to bring up in every situation. I do not know to what extent your friend is already aware of these teachings, but it sounds like not at all. Given her mother just died, and that you are new to Buddhism yourself and seem to lack a good grasp on the core teachings, I would not insert yourself as into a teacher position with her. What she needs, is a good friend, a listener. The Buddha's teachings are too easily misunderstood and when someone who isn't greatly skilled in teaching tries to pass them along as guidance in an especially difficult time, it can be counterproductive. If SHE shows an interest, I would direct her to an actual teacher.

Just when I thought you couldn't be anymore insulting.

I wasn't really going to teach her about Buddhism, but rather tell her to look into it. Though, upon looking into it, she will obviously see the Four Noble Truths and it will be bring us to the question I brought up.


As a note, it is premature of you to make judgments of my understanding of Buddhism based on my length of becoming Buddhist. I have been listening to Alan Watts, looonngg before I became Buddhist. Not to mention, plenty of prior philosophical study and research and learning from many great thinkers that are influenced by Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies. My philosophical and free thinking background has enabled me to quickly grasp Buddhist philosophy.

My question here was one that I instinctually thought of after stepping on something sharp. Sometimes, despite having a good understanding of a concept (or non-concept), your mind isn't always in deep think mode.


.

federica

Are we done here, exchanging belittling remarks and baiting?
is the questions answered?
I think it is.

Thanks to all who participated mindfully.