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.
whats the point
Zania
Explorer
So if all experiences and all material possessions ultimately lead to nothing but suffering and grief then what is the point of even getting out of bed in the morning. I just think this concept is a bit depressing.
0
Comments
Clinging leads to suffering. Action, possessions or experiences can cause clinging, but do not necessarily do so, and so as we traverse our lives, the goal is to be directly present, without clinging or projection.
Clinging to experiences and material possessions leads to suffering as they are all impermanent. One can still enjoy movies, a piece of music, a bar of soap and when they are over there is no problem.
But "falling in love" and losing it is painful, as is having one's home burned down. Why is that?
That question doesn't have a simple answer. One way to look at it is that we have a precious human life where we have the opportunity to be kind and compassionate to others, train our minds, and practice the dharma. It would be a waste of our life to simply stay in bed because there is suffering.
Not necessarily. Like other examples, it all depends on your own mindset. Some people may be attached to a bar of soap and be very upset when it melts away. The same can be said for a movie - perhaps they felt so excited about it that when the movie ends they feel disappointed and let down.
Sadly, people and relationships are also impermanent. We are just as attached to them as we are to material objects, so it feels just as bad when we are separated from them.
Indeed. Clinging to anything pleasurable will cause suffering, because inevitably, in one way or another, nothing lasts. In the case of human beings, all relationships, however good, will end with the separation of death.
This doesn't mean that we should become depressed, however. We can still appreciate and maybe enjoy our lives even better with this understanding.
_/\_
If you believe this then Buddhism is not for you. Sorry.
Nios.
Would be good if instead of selectively taking one line out of context like that you answer the entire question? Or perhaps you cannot?
I seriously want to know the answer. How can one possibly not be attached in the scenarios I have suggested? I dont know anyone who would not suffer in such a situation. If you do not suffer when a loved one dies then what do feel? Am I misunderstanding what it means to not suffer? If a loved one dies and you do not suffer do you still feel pain and sadness?
Buddhism is not about becoming robotic. It's about becoming skillful. In Mahayana and Vajrayana it's about developing profound compassion for all sentient beings. This would mean being skilfully present to our own suffering and that of other sentient beings.
The word "dukkha" is often translated into english as "suffering", however, this is poor translation. The word "dukkha" can mean "change/imperminant/unsatisfactory/suffering/unpleasant". The Buddhist path is all about the extinction of dukkha. Buddha detailed the way in which to do this, and one of these ways is to understand the nature and cause of our dukkha.
"Clinging" and "attachment" in Buddhism is a cause of dukkha. For us to understand why this causes suffering we need to look deeply at what is clinging and attachment. (this is where meditation plays a key role).
Why do we cling to things? Well, for many of us, we cling to things because we believe that this object (car/phone etc) will bring us lasting joy/happiness. Then, when it breaks (imperminance) we feel anger or sadness (dukkha).
So, one way (of many) to rid ourselves of dukkha is to understand that this object (car/phone etc) will not bring us lasting happiness. This deep understand and release of clinging to the object means that when it eventually breaks, we do not feel dukkha.
Another way people rid themselves of dukkha is to renounce the object in the first place. For these people a monastic way of life is suited. But of course, this doesn't rid the clinging and longing for the object. One still needs to understand the nature of their clinging in order to rid themselves of dukkha.
Now, when it comes to relationships, things get more difficult. Nowhere in Buddhism does it say that we cannot love someone, (in fact, it is encouraged for laypeople), however, one needs to understand that this relationship will cause dukkha. So we are faced with 3 choices;
1) Do not try to understand dukkha and experience it in all it's depressing glory when it eventually comes.
2) Learn to understand it and hopefully get rid of it - this doesn't mean one has to leave the relationship or stop loving, but it may make you "appear" to be cold, especially to other people.
3) Renounce all relationships and become celebate.
Accepting dukkha may make things seem less painful but it doesn't make it any better, in my opinion. If you are willing to just live with dukkha then the Buddhist path is not for you. However, if you want to understand the cause, and strive to the extinction, of dukkha then Buddhism offers a wonderful path for you to do this.
There are other causes of dukkha too. Aversion is often a forgotten fascet but still just as important (ie aversion to dukkha creates dukkha). The idea of "self" is another, the idea of "perminant" is another, "ignoring" is another and so on.
The four noble truths of Buddhism are not only the basics, but also (in my opinion) one of the hardest and most important things to grasp.
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/8foldpath.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/basic-guide.htm
Nios.
Of course you do! From my understanding so far with Buddhism and meditation, it all boils down to the fact that "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional." Yes, you will still have an incredible amount of pain and sadness. Meditation and the dharma have helped me to not HOLD ON TO (cling) to that pain and sadness, and not to cling to a person because of my understanding of impermanence, and my belief that we're all the same, all products of the same creative energy that creates Earth and everything else that we see in forms (not sure if this is a Buddhist belief but it's mine and ties in nicely).
For me, I know that I would still break down and cry, still experience intense sadness and pain frequently, but I will be able to let all that move through me without letting it sit inside, using my monkey mind to go over and over and over it and dwell in those sad feelings.
Hope this helps!
Well personally i get out of bed in the morning to practise
If i stayed in bed all day contemplating and futhering my grief about my suffering i would be useless.
Buddha gave a method to permenantly overcome suffering i believe it is worthwhile to pursue the goal everyday to help my self and others be free from the sufferings of samsara.
It is also helping me to say" dont worry monkey" "it will be ok monkey" and "whatever monkey" its very important to love the monkey however no matter how much negative thinking and anger he comes up with"
he may need some tough love at times.
You can even disssolve the little bugger into bliss and emptiness! still working on that one haha
To alleviate the suffering of others.
That's a difficult one to convey and understand (I'm still working on it myself). One can love another person very deeply, but still understand that the nature of relationships is, like all things, that they are impermanent. I think "attached" is the problem word. I'm "attached" to my dogs for instance. I love them very much. But I know that dogs only live a certain number of years (on average), and that unless I get hit by a bus or some other fate befalls me unexpectedly, they will die before I do. That doesn't mean I love them any less, nor that I'm not "attached" to them from the standpoint that we live together and I provide for their needs. But hopefully I'm not "attached" to them such that when they inevitably do die that I completely fall to pieces because I'm clinging to them and not wanting to let them go. "Attachment" in Buddhist terms is the root of suffering, but it has a much more specific sense than the common meaning in English conveys.
This is a tough concept, but there is a subtle difference...
Mtns
like the Buddha and his disciples that able to see true nature of the reality and manifest strong life state , they can enjoy the state of nirvana , beside liberating oneself they can also guide and help the rest , and extend their wisdom down for so many generation to continue benefiting others
One amazingly good reason to get out of bed is...... TAAA DAAA, compassion and loving kindness. As people have mentioned in a variety of ways, being compassionate and helping others is a good reason to get out of that bed of yours. It has many many positive repercussions.
Secondly, you can still do every day things in life and not have attachment or have strong attachment to them. If you have a trained mind that is. You seem to read that attachment to things and feelings is a bad thing, but maybe you do not fully understand why?
I think the best way to learn about buddhism is to know the basic teachings and then to go and find out for yourself
Tom
Attachment, in the Western sense, is a very positive thing. It can describe affection, love, a deep bond, etc. We say things like, "the mother and her baby are attached".
Buddhists would probably use words like love or compassion to describe these emotions.
Attachment in the Buddhist sense only has a negative connotation; it is more like greed, craving, obsession, possessiveness. Attachment springs from a fearful insecurity called "self-grasping" and its only function is to cause us torment.
A very wise person can deeply love someone else without attachment, due to the power of his/her wisdom. The Buddhist path always hinges on the development of love and wisdom. Without wisdom, attachment can creep into our loving relationships, and choke the happiness we once felt.
Attachment to material things such as your super call ipod or favorite pair of shoes is also negative. When you get this new item, it is fresh, new cool and amazing for about 5 seconds lol. It will break, get old, get dirty or become lost. Having an attachment to this item will INEVITABLY lead to suffering and or dissatisfaction. Many people have this delusion that money will make them happy, that they will feel better when they get a certain item. It never does, they get it and then after some time they need something else and so on.
Depression has become so wide spread in modern society, it use to exist going back in time, but not to the extent it does now. Why is this? There are probably several reasons, but one of them is all of these items, these attachments that exist in people's lives. You probably will look at your ipod and think, 'pfft, how can this harmless little gizmo make me depressed,'' but trust me, in time it will cause you some sort of dissatisfaction or suffering.
Tom
:thumbsup:
Attachments are ego-possessive.
Why is this in a Buddhist forum?
The existential apathy forum is that way ——————>
Also, a bit lighter, since we're here anyways, why not make the most of it....
lol....
It seems to be a question meant to clarify the difference between Buddhism and existential apathy, rather than just a statement of apathy.
It is important to note that the Buddha used concepts not in an ordinary way. Thankfully, he explained what he meant. Suffering, self, liberation, and so on are used in a specific context with an specific meaning. What is suffering for the Buddha is different of what it means to us. It doesn't mean he had a cryptic wisdom that allowed him to see our happiness as suffering. It just means he had a different idea altogether in his mind when he talked about suffering.
This is actually what a depressed person would think.
Be patient, Zania, as it takes quite a while to grasp the fuller meaning of "dukkha" and its significance in the Buddhist Path. In the ordinary usage of the word, it means suffering, pain, sorrow, misery, etc. But as you progress in the practice, you will begin to see that Dukkha, at a deeper philosophical level, also means unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, insubstantiality, etc. as Nios pointed out in a earlier post. Just give yourself more time.
I am aware of that.
being is the point
It isn't a concept, it is a set of eternal and indubitable truths. It's the way things are for all things. This can depress you or liberate you, the choice is up to you:)
namaste
1 The goal to eliminate suffering does seem possible. But what about this? If you have acheive nirvana lets say, and one day a tree falls on you at no fault of your own, then what is to say about this? Also. Is it not a contradictory to acknowledge that we live in an imperfect world(one with suffering and joy) but to then try to perfect it by remove this balance? In some cases too, people can suffer in life, but others simply are more lucky than others and don't. why?
2 You say suffering comes from clinging, but to me, it sounds as though it depends on how the person approaches it is whether or not its bad for us. For example, you say acceptance of suffering is bad and not part of buddhism, but a better way to put that is learning how to properly deal with it. Is this what you mean? Dealing with it positively. I can have someone pass away, but if I have enough wisdom and control to not let it bother me forever, then I'm good? With this is another question. If a person does not cling to something, and fully understands impermanence and can control it fine, is it ok to still keep possesions such as a phone or computer. That is essentially what the middlepath is, no?
Another question, I have an uncle whom I love dearly, but he has had leukemia for about 4 years and could die soon because is symptoms are very unpredictable. My family members constantly cry over his illness, but I do not. My view is that he should love himself and life and try to make the most of it while there's time. Is this a buddhist view or am I just heartless xD. I've never cried over him either. But this lack of attachment might also just be linked to that he isnt as close a relative as a parent or sibling. IDK :O?
Also, (to eveyone) thank you for answering many questions I had. In recent weeks, I had been stressing greatly over the common question of "What will I do in my future" It was causing me great grief and stress. I now realize, I don't need to worry as the answer will come to me later when the time is right. I can enjoy and learn in the moment, all of which will help me for the future. If I have more questions, I'l post
When a tree falls down on an enlightened person, he dies right?
and then?
What do you think?
i dont know.
Probably something like "Ouch, that hurts! Get this tree off me!"
In Buddhism, pain is not equal to suffering. Most people think that pain and suffering are synonymous. They are 2 different things. An enlightened being would of course still feel pain if a tree fell on them. But because there would be no aversion or resistance to the pain, there would be no suffering because of the pain. There would just be pain and nothing more. There would be no "I wish that didn't happen, I don't want to have a broken leg, It really hurts and I don't like that." There would be none of that. There would just be "ouch" and nothing more. So the end result would be: healthy leg, no problem. Broken leg, no problem. Most people would consider a broken leg to be a problem because they cling to a healthy leg. An enlightened being does not cling to anything, therefore, regardless of what happens, there is no problem.
Again, there is a need to recognize the difference between pain and suffering. Yes, it will be painful, and the pain will persist until the form (body) heals. Suffering is the clinging to that pain. For instance, feeling bad for yourself, wondering why this happened to you and not someone else, expecting attention from loved ones over your injury.
I can't verify that suffering is completely escapable, though I do believe that it is from the teachings of the Buddha and from other teachers who live a life without suffering. I can verify, from my own experience, that suffering can be cut down on A LOT, and that life is much clearer, much more vivid, and less stressing as I slowly let some of my cravings and clingings go.
Okay well that's a satisfactory answer
I'm not sure that "acceptance of suffering" is "bad". If you accept suffering as a way of life, you will keep suffering, that's all. Buddhism just says that there is a better way, a way to stop suffering, but it's up to you to walk that path. A Buddhist won't call you a "bad person" for accepting suffering, but will feel compassion for you.
You might feel sadness about that person passing, but you won't get caught in the "OMG, i want that person back" mind loop that is essentially the suffering caused by clinging.
Didn't you see a sign on the door that said "please turn in all of your material posessions before proceeding"? :-) sorry, couldn't resist..
In all seriousness, there is no requirement to give everything up because you want to learn impermanence. What I suspect will happen instead, is as you mature in your understanding of impermanence and reduce your attachments to objects around you, your life will automatically become simpler and simpler. You will stop needing things that don't contribute much to your life. On the other hand, Dalai Lama travels around the world, and he needs to get from place to place, so he uses whatever technology is necessary to live his life. There is nothing wrong with using a computer or cell phone unless they interfere with your spiritual development.
Western civilization has a notion of death that is very different from the Buddhist view. I don't have enough insight to answer your question, but you might gain a better understanding of the matter if you read the "Tibetan book of living and dying" - it deals with this exact topic very well. At least search the forum for the name of the book, as I remember there was an interesting discussion about it before.
I'd just read a story about one of the Zen Patriarchs (it might have been Dogen), who did not visit his dying mother's deathbed. I thought this was awful, and I expressed my feeling to the Zen master.
To my surprise, she did not share my outrage; on the contrary, she showed much greater equanimity, giving the Patriarch the benefit of the doubt. At the time, I thought she was crazy; but now, after long reflection, I realize she was speaking from a place of wisdom and experience far surpassing my own.
The truth is that no one really knows how they would handle the loss of a loved one, until it happens. You might reach a place of equanimity by that time where you're sad at the person's passing, but not overwhelmed by grief. There are levels of wisdom and understanding that transcend our current experience: we don't know them yet, we haven't yet been there.
One thing is for sure, though: who you are 50 years from now will be very different from who you are now!
I did suffer when she died, not really because of death or the dying process (which for me were never shocking), but because in a daily basis I didn't have that person anymore. You might say I suffered because of her abscence, not because of her death.
When I cried about it I did it when nobody else is looking. Until this day my sisters hold the whole thing against me. Two days after the funeral one of them caught me crying and then said "What is the problem? Aren't you supposed to be the strong one of the family? Why don't you go mind your business? Do that, go!" (and that is a small cause among many why I dislike my sisters...). This one was constantly crying over it. If you showed her anything that belonged to my mother she would start crying. And she spent months crying in the bathroom of her workplace.
Another of my sisters made a big fuss about it for about six months. She felt like she was the only one who could bring the subject up and would get angry if I talked about it, like I had no right to do so. Basically she turned it into a big reason why her life sucked, because she expected my mother to raise her son, and would imagine having these prophetic dreams of my mother.
My father planted flowers in her grave, making a sort of flowerbed and would tend to it. It was his way of coping I guess.
All I wanna say is that each person reacts in a different way. The fact that you seem more 'placid' about it doesn't mean you are heartless and it doesn't mean you are having a buddhist attitude towards it. It just shows your individual way of handling the situation, that's all.
first of all the above is not taken out of the context but the most important part lies within it because part of the answer is there
if there is a birth (we are born already) then suffering is inevitable and we need to accept whatever we face (pleasure or pain) instead of trying to get rid of it
trying to get rid of 'what we do not want' is the attachment we have and that make us suffer
accepting the situation is the 'let go' of 'what we do not want' then it doesn't make us suffer
since you said you know the theory: birth is suffering; sickness is suffering; aging is suffering; sorrow, lamentation.... are suffering;association with the unpleasant is suffering; dissociation from the pleasant suffering;not to get what one want is suffering;
it is easy to understand the above and you already know it is hard to understand the below
in brief the five aggregate of attachment is suffering.
here comes the second part of the answer
meditation is not just for calming mind, relaxation mind and body
we need to calm the mind, relaxation mind and body, but we need to go further and try to analyse the five aggregates of attachment etc. and see the exact nature of our lives
little by little we will be able to understand what exactly Buddhism trying to say of our suffering and get rid of suffering
in brief we will be able to understand if there is birth (becoming) there is suffering
and life will not be depressing any more because we learn to live in the present moment
and the last of all
we will be able to come into terms with suffering in this life itself
Thank you for your answer. Different people are saying many different things. I appreciate everyones responses but yours makes the most sense.
......now what did you feel reading that? were you offended? amused? bemused? hurt? angered? or did you just scoff? Were you indifferent? Any of those answers will point to an attachment, a basic position or identity from where you reacted. "Attachment" has different shades but it comes down to an identification with certain traits, conditions, or qualities as "I" "me" or "mine". Attachment to conditions is our default way of being before we make the effort to cultivate greater awareness through meditation practice. Even after years of practice the habit of identification with conditions is deeply ingrained. There is more space around such attachment's and times free of clinging, but the it requires effort. There are some remarkable people who are quite free most of the time.
Others may explaining it better.