Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Let me get this straight...

edited March 2011 in Buddhism Basics
Does Buddhism legitimately offer a path to a reduction of suffering? Is that literally what you Buddhists believe?

I know that perhaps the route to that goal is understanding that the self is an illusion and that suffering ocurrs when we hold onto the concept of self and attachment with things... but as far as I'm aware the Buddha neither confirmed nor denied that an "i" exists... or in other words something to experienc the suffering.

To put it simply, is the Buddhist way worth following if I want to be happier? or is it a kind of meaningless question.. like you can do it if you want but it can't give you anything? I mean, in simple terms, will I (whatever "i" actually means and whatever it is) reduce my suffering? Will suffering disolve?

Maybe a simple question... I don't know... but I'm aware that everything has a kind of underlying logic to do with self that complicates Buddhism. I mean... i'm aware that the Buddha found peace when he STOPPED searching for an end to suffering.... but that is still a "thing" that he did. He stopped. So, suffering is inevitable if I'm alive... ok, I can deal with that, BUT even if it's inevitable can it be reduced through understanding Buddhist philosophy?

Comments

  • I'm interested in the answers you might get here. I think those are pretty valid questions.

    I wouldn't call myself a buddhist, but I can certainly attest to the power of mindfulness practice in one's life. You do develop more equanimity which inherently tones down your perceived suffering (and since suffering in the buddhist sense is all about perception, it effectively stops a lot of your "ACTUAL" suffering).

    I will say the "I" questions will always be really important...one of the things that is starting to scare me shitless is my sense of identity. It's like you can't feel entitled to anything, you can never feel the victim nor the hero....and I guess that's fine on a macro plane...but with smaller stuff it makes you feel like everything you ever valued is meaningless...
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    I think your grasp of buddhism is very good.

    The short answer is Yes. Cultivating buddhism will make it easier to detach from painfull situations and give you a perspective on life and the world that will make even the hardest situation more bareable.

    /Victor

    Look for the thread "The View that there is no self is wrong view" for some thoughts on the self.
  • What Buddhism does, either gradually or suddenly depending on the school of Buddhism teaching it, is change the person's fundamental attitude toward suffering. The brief version of this is that "pain exists, but suffering is optional". The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are that 1. people suffer 2. there is a reason that people suffer, namely clinging (wanting what you have to last forever, wanting what you don't want to just go away, wanting people you love to stay forever, wanting people you don't want around to just go away, those sorts of things) 3. There is a way to diminish or eventually be free of this type of suffering and 4. To do this, one should follow the Noble Eightfold Path.

    Briefly, Buddhism is based in a recognition that everything is impermanent, and that the more we can accept that, we can enjoy what we have while we have it, but be content to let go of it when it's no longer going to be in our lives, and so forth.

    So yes, even though suffering is inevitable it can be reduced through understanding and PRACTICING Buddhist philosophy.

    Welcome aboard. This is a very interesting site with some really interesting people on it.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Does Buddhism legitimately offer a path to a reduction of suffering? Is that literally what you Buddhists believe?
    To an extent, yes.
    because (a) I have tested it for myself, and (b) it only works if you implement it. If you struggle and argue against the logic of it all, you just wriggle yourself further into the quicksand....
    I know that perhaps the route to that goal is understanding that the self is an illusion and that suffering ocurrs when we hold onto the concept of self and attachment with things... but as far as I'm aware the Buddha neither confirmed nor denied that an "i" exists... or in other words something to experienc the suffering.
    So? Relax. Just take things easy, and ponder things as they arise. Don't force "learning". Little steps, there's no desperate rush or race to the finish.
    I've been practising a good while now. There's still stuff I find it hard to get my head round, but I really don't sweat it.....
    To put it simply, is the Buddhist way worth following if I want to be happier? or is it a kind of meaningless question.. like you can do it if you want but it can't give you anything? I mean, in simple terms, will I (whatever "i" actually means and whatever it is) reduce my suffering? Will suffering disolve?
    Well, really, you've answered your own question.
    Many have likened Buddhism to a 'map'. It's all there for you in black and white, but you still have to do the legwork.
    to my mind, it's worth every step, because it's not meant to be an ordeal, it's supposed to bring you the pleasure of exploration and discovery....
    Maybe a simple question... I don't know... but I'm aware that everything has a kind of underlying logic to do with self that complicates Buddhism. I mean... i'm aware that the Buddha found peace when he STOPPED searching for an end to suffering.... but that is still a "thing" that he did. He stopped. So, suffering is inevitable if I'm alive... ok, I can deal with that, BUT even if it's inevitable can it be reduced through understanding Buddhist philosophy?
    Just for a moment, drop the 'self/not-self' stuff.
    Concentrate on the primary basics.
    Just get through the day adhering to the Eightfold path.
    That's normally enough of a challenge to anyone, let alone all this self/attachment/suffering deal.....

  • Does Buddhism legitimately offer a path to a reduction of suffering? Is that literally what you Buddhists believe?
    Buddhism offers a path to the _end_ of suffering. There are many ways of reducing suffering. My mother used to do it with the moderate application of bourbon.
    but as far as I'm aware the Buddha neither confirmed nor denied that an "i" exists
    The Buddha said that both the thought "I have a self" and "I have no self" lead to suffering and stress. It's in the Sabbasavva Sutta if you want to check the source. :-)
    i'm aware that the Buddha found peace when he STOPPED searching for an end to suffering
    According to the available sources, he stopped searching for an end to suffering because he found an end to suffering. :-)
    can it be reduced through understanding Buddhist philosophy?
    Maybe. But practice is usually more effective than philosophy.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    :rockon:
  • @RenGalskap

    Very well put
  • I struggle with this too.

    On the one hand the buddha said: “I teach one thing and one only: that is suffering and the end of suffering.” On the other hand, dukkha is one of the three marks of existence.

    The four noble truths point to the cessation of suffering as the goal of buddhism, but then I read things that suggest that having the end of suffering as a goal is a mistake that will only lead to more suffering.

    In my experience, my practice has greatly reduced my suffering, but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    If it has reduced your suffering, I doubt you're doing it wrong. That's what the Buddha taught it for. :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2011
    but as far as I'm aware the Buddha neither confirmed nor denied that an "i" exists... or in other words something to experience the suffering.?
    hi Jeff

    Your logic, according to Buddhism, breaks down here.

    It is "the mind" that experiences suffering rather than the "I".

    It is "the mind" that finds happiness rather than the "I".

    It is "the mind" that is liberated rather than the "I".

    The "I" itself is suffering. The Buddha called the "I" a "disease", a "tumour", a "cancer", a "dart".

    With metta

    :)
    'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said.

    With reference to what was it said?

    'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'...is a construing.

    Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2011
    On the one hand the buddha said: “I teach one thing and one only: that is suffering and the end of suffering.” On the other hand, dukkha is one of the three marks of existence.
    Hi Paradox

    You merely are not aware of the theory or definitions here, that is all.

    The word "dukkha" is used in many ways and each meaning is not he same.

    In the First Noble Truth, dukkha refers to mental torment or psychological dukkha.

    In the 2nd Mark of Existence, dukkha refers to the unsatisfactoriness of impermanent phenomena. For example, because your computer or motor car will inevitably break down, it possesses the characteristic of dukka.

    Dukkha can also refer to physical pain. For example, the Buddha himself experienced physical pain but his mind did not suffer.

    There is no contradiction. There is only the need to understand the definitions of the Pali language.

    For an enlightened being, because they constantly experience 2nd Mark of Existence, their mind ends the dukkha of the First Noble Truth.

    Please read the quotes below.

    Kind regards

    :)
    277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

    278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory [dukkha]" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering [dukkha]. This is the path to purification.

    279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html
    "Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is form... feeling... perception... fabricating.... consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

    "Impermanent, O Lord."

    "Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

    "Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

    "Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

    "Indeed, not that, O Lord."

    "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html





  • zenffzenff Veteran
    @jefflebowski

    Buddhism is about 2500 years old. During those years many people thought about Buddhism very hard and with different outcomes.
    So first of all: there are hardly any uniform Buddhist answers and Buddhists believe all sorts of things.

    Okay, now your question: can suffering be reduced?
    Here’s my shot at it.

    1. Yes, to a point suffering can be reduced.
    When we practice wisdom, moral life, and meditation (the 8-fold path) we will be happier and suffer less.
    But we will always be human beings, and sickness old age and death are an inseparable part of that.

    2. Whatever happens, both happiness and suffering are empty and so is the 8-fold path.

    The first answer refers to a gradual path.
    This second one points at the possibility of sudden enlightenment.

    We don’t really have to choose between the two because there is no contradiction.
    When we accept the idea of emptiness – an even when we have “realized” it – we still have to make choices in our lives. And the choices of the 8-fold path are the choices that produce (empty) happiness and reduce (empty) suffering. There’s nothing (empty) wrong with that.
    It is even (empty) good for all (empty) living beings.

    So in other words, suffering can not only be reduced, but it can also be seen through as being empty, which means we can be on the path towards freedom and at the same time be free already while doing so.

    Again this is my answer. Not THE answer!

    :)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited March 2011
    By the way there is no sudden full/complete enlightenment. There can be sudden awakening then gradual cultivation, which actually is how it always works. The mind awakens to its true nature and sees no self there, and then has to work on removing all of the defilements. Anywhere you see "instant/instantaneous/sudden enlightenment", gradual cultivation follows until full enlightenment. That's the second part of the equation that is usually dropped.

    You don't go from a worldling to being completely unfettered all at once. :) It's always a gradual path, though the first awakening is the most important and can come suddenly without much effort, sometimes without it even being expected. Read Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry" sometime, great read!
  • On the one hand the buddha said: “I teach one thing and one only: that is suffering and the end of suffering.” On the other hand, dukkha is one of the three marks of existence.
    Hi Paradox

    You merely are not aware of the theory or definitions here, that is all.

    The word "dukkha" is used in many ways and each meaning is not he same.

    In the First Noble Truth, dukkha refers to mental torment or psychological dukkha.

    In the 2nd Mark of Existence, dukkha refers to the unsatisfactoriness of impermanent phenomena. For example, because your computer or motor car will inevitably break down, it possesses the characteristic of dukka.

    Dukkha can also refer to physical pain. For example, the Buddha himself experienced physical pain but his mind did not suffer.

    There is no contradiction. There is only the need to understand the definitions of the Pali language.

    For an enlightened being, because they constantly experience 2nd Mark of Existence, their mind ends the dukkha of the First Noble Truth.

    Please read the quotes below.

    Kind regards

    :)
    277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

    278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory [dukkha]" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering [dukkha]. This is the path to purification.

    279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html
    "Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is form... feeling... perception... fabricating.... consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

    "Impermanent, O Lord."

    "Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

    "Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

    "Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

    "Indeed, not that, O Lord."

    "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html





    Thanks for taking the time to post this explanation. Very helpful. :)
  • Does Buddhism legitimately offer a path to a reduction of suffering? Is that literally what you Buddhists believe?
    If you believe that suffering exists (and I think it's pretty self-evident that it does), it follows logically that something had to cause the suffering, since nothing can spontaneously exist without some causal event. If you believe then, that something caused the suffering, then it follows logically that it should be possible, given proper understanding, to eliminate the cause of the suffering. From there it's not a big leap to think that there might be a path (or a method, or whatever name you give it) to get you to elimination of the causes of suffering. If all that logic rings true to you, and if you follow it, then *poof* you're a Buddhist. Oh, and the secret handshake. You have to learn that :)

Sign In or Register to comment.