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.
Isn't the body the real problem?
Buddhism focuses too much on the mind, that an untamed mind is a problem etc. etc. but isn't the real problem the body? Not only because of physical problems like diseases and aches, but even mental problems are due to chemical imbalances in the brain. In short, even so called mental and emotional problems like stress, depression, anxiety are due to the body.
That being the case, why focus on the mind? Isn't flesh the real problem?
That being the case, why focus on the mind? Isn't flesh the real problem?
0
Comments
"Mind" is where we see all the interactions, all the craving, all the suffering. It's "experience"... and that, right there, is where we recognize the problem and abandon its cause. It's not something we do with the body. It doesn't matter what we do to the body, that won't solve our problems.
Taking your logic (of not dividing "it"), since the "body" is part of the "world", really the entire world is the problem. And that's actually the truth of it! All of conditioned existence is suffering. The "world" is suffering.
Body includes brain, but "mind" is experience itself. It's relating to the world, it's craving, it's suffering, it's all of that... it depends on the body, on the brain, on sense data, but it's speaking about the experiences themselves and how we relate to the world. If we turn our focus away from this, we'll think there's something we can do to the body to alleviate our suffering. This is how things like asceticism came into play, where people would starve themselves and torture the body. This doesn't alleviate suffering. That's foolishness. It's only in the mind that suffering arises, and only there we can alleviate it.
I'm reminded of the Woody Allen joke about two old ladies eating in a restaurant. One says, "You know the food here is really terrible." The other replies, "I know. And such small portions."
The psycho-physical organism is suffering according to the Buddha (S.iii.158). The mental components of the psycho-physical body are feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and sensory consciousness. Consciousness, the most subtle, interfaces with the biological body (rupa), the first component, and the mental components (even with itself but as sensory/pluralized consciousness).
Were consciousness not to interface with the psycho-physical body there would be no suffering. The problem is, we cannot distinguish the psycho-physical system from pure consciousness or, the same, pure mind,. We thus remain attached to a system of suffering with apparently no means of escape.
The real problem as the Buddha sees it is our inability to liberate our mind from the psycho-physical organism.
with a similar idea
torture the $*@%* out of the body (his "ascetic" phase), since that's the only "real" tether, right?
I've heard it's not recommended, "does not lead to unbinding"
Instead he suggests the Middle Way. Not super indulgent, not super self-torturous/ascetic,
but somewheres in the middle.
Because really, you are not just Mind and you are not just Body, and as @genkaku very kindly pointed out, you can't have one without the other. "A body without a mind is a corpse" as I've heard eloquently put.
strive for balance =]
Stress, depression, anxiety are not ALWAYS the direct result of bodily functions, but are the result of your thought process ( the mind is a very vague concept for me ), which is a part of your brain's functions. The brain's functions are influenced by this thought process in some measure, meaning that, if an outside stimulus is associated with danger and or possibility of failure, your brain gives you stress and the rest. Oh, and by this associations, your brain puts in motion an entire chain of systems that, on the long term, affects other systems (see stress induced afflictions ) .
On the other hand, those bad emotions could be the result of your body...but that happens when you have serious hormonal disorders ( that could be partially or entirely treated with medicine ).
So both body and mind are the problem here, but only in the mind can we fix something. So that's where we need to do the work. That's why you'll rarely if ever see a monk doing push ups instead of meditation.
This is something that I don't think many can fully appreciate, that even bodily suffering is overcome by enlightenment. It's the same as hearing a sound you don't like... except removing your aversion to the sound. You no longer suffer from experiencing that sound. The body is related to in just this not-self way, just as if it were a sound or a sight or a smell. Its pain is experienced without aversion and let go in every moment as if it were nothing special, "suffering" does not arise. It's all just the yapping of birds, nothing to be concerned about.
The Four Noble Truths are not about eliminating "most" suffering in life, and then having to die to have the rest removed. It's about eliminating all suffering, which only arises when there's craving, and ceases when craving has been uprooted by wisdom. It may be a subtlety that takes time to appreciate since it's the fact we don't know the Four Noble Truths that we suffer... enlightenment is coming closer and closer to true Right View of the Four Noble Truths, with perfect right view being Nirvana.
So yeah, the body is a problem. The Buddha called it a disease, a cancer for a reason. But it's not the only problem of course. As you said, the real problem is clinging.
This either makes sense or it doesn't, but it's still true. The Four Noble Truths isn't about overcoming most suffering but not all, and it specifically attributes all suffering to craving, and Nirvana is the cessation of all craving/suffering.
You just have to stop thinking of things like "pain" as being bad. Good and bad are liking and disliking, and enlightenment is beyond such discriminatory experience. It's all feathers in the wind. Take away "me" and "my body", and take away all aversion, and what has pain become? Nothing, just a sensation like any sensation. It's not inherently suffering, it's only suffering when it's ours and we find it unpleasant.
We have to listen foremost to enlightened people about this... if they say they are not suffering from bodily pain and illness, we have to first accept their words (they would know) as true and then try to understand why. It'll come to us, given time (we're moving toward perfecting "Right View" of the Four Noble Truths, that's what the Path is about). I think that's about all I wanna say about this, it's something hard to grasp methinks.
Perhaps @Jason might have some information on this, he's usually very well informed.
Human beings primarily involve themselves in the left brain conceptual processes.
I listened to a talk about Reggie Ray speaking about how we move from left brain dominance to right brain and the somatic. The somatic being the body.
So according to Vajrayana the seat of enlightenment is the body.
And enlightenment brings one back exactly to this body, with the heart and all the sensations. It is utterly empty, yet the luminous clarity unceasingly manifests.
But here is something I wrote in my journal:
"Peace, joy, openness, clarity, etc. These are all delicious.
But may we also disturb the peace, be closed off, muddy the clarity.
Feel anger, fear, tiredness, depression, etc.
We must never deny our humanity. We must not fear getting dirty again.
Because tell you what. Life will always present itself. Reality is infinite potential. We must integrate all that we reject as the display of our luminous nature and through emptiness we survive.
And I want to assert that true freedom lies in just being human. Beyond samsara and nirvana, no where to dwell. Yet playing in the murky waters of samsara and being free in the vastness of nirvana.
As Dogen asserted, "Enlightenment is intimacy with all things."
All things."
Practice and find out for yourself. In my practice the body has been quite the ally and in fact everything has been useful.
If you meditate and take mental reaction away from pain, there is still pain. It is 10 times weaker and doesn't agitate, but it is still pain. It's not the end of suffering. Sensations themselves can also be suffering, nomatter how we respond to it. As long as those sensations aren't satisfying, we could call them suffering.
So let's listen to some enlightened ones
As I said, I think this is something hard to grasp. I'd rather trust the word of a living Buddha (well, he was) when he says he doesn't experience suffering from such things. Unbound consciousness simply does not suffer; it experiences without allowing suffering to arise at any point. Enlightenment is beyond pleasure and pain, life and death, fame and gain, praise and blame, all such worldly concerns... it's only worldly existence, conditioned existence, that Dukkha applies to.
But you have to make one clear distinction. If you ask questions like "is pain suffering to you" you already get a step too far. Because that's forgetting non-self. Suffering is impersonal. It happens without happening TO anyone. So one can't bother and still suffering exists. And so suffering is not bad. I've not used the word bad, that's what you made of it.
Now often nibbana and parinibbana are synonyms and they are mutually connected. So if you have one, you have the other. But here is one clear example of when it is said final nirvana is the end goal. So it may not be apparent from all suttas, but to say it's nowhere is wrong. If we look at dependent origination, we see everything cessates, not just clinging. Also death cessates. Now the Buddha still had to die, so obviously the process of cessation wasn't finished yet, so we can't just assume all suffering was finished. That's how deep suffering is inherent to life and that's why I keep getting back to it, I think it's import
edit: I see you've edited your post quite extensively, but I leave my reply as it is
So I agree to disagree fullheartedly
Metta!
The benefit I I get out of this conversation (the seeds so to speak), is that I am in no position to understand (from an experiential perspective) such a subtle concept right now. I definitely need to continue my practice and when I reach that point I will let you know which one was right
The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves. And according to the commentaries, dukkha is defined as 'that which is hard to bear.'
So while the Buddha did include both mental and physical pain in his description of dukkha, sickness and physical pain are not necessarily experienced as dukkha, especially by an arahant, i.e., a person whose mind is free of defilement. With the presence of clinging in regard to the five aggregates, bodily phenomena such as sickness and physical pain are experienced as suffering; however, without the presence of clinging, the experience of bodily phenomena such as sickness and physical pain aren't experienced as suffering, i.e., they're no longer 'difficult to bear.'
In other words, although nibbana — the summum bonum of Buddhism — is said to be the cessation of suffering, that doesn't mean that a person won't feel physical pain or discomfort, but it does mean that such feelings will no longer cause mental suffering, emotional distress, etc. I think this is made clear in the simile of the dart found in SN 36.6: Hope that's helpful. Any questions and/or further discussion on my part will have to wait until I come back from my road trip.
Have fun on your road trip!
There are no painful mental states, chieftain,
in one without longing.
In one whose fetters are ended,
all fears are overcome.
With the ending of [craving]
the guide to becoming,
when phenomena are seen
for what they are,
then just as in the laying down of a burden,
there's no fear in death.
I've lived well the holy life,
well-developed the path.
Death holds no fear for me.
It's like the end of a disease.
One gone to the far shore
without clinging
without effluent
his task completed,
welcomes the ending of life,
as if freed from a place of execution.
Having attained the supreme Rightness,
unconcerned with all the world,
as if released from a burning house,
he doesn't sorrow at death.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.16.01.than.html
Hi @Jason,
Thanks for the repsonse and have a nice trip!
This term clinging-aggregates has been interpreted in many ways, one is indeed seperating the aggregates not subject to suffering to be not dukkha. But if one does that, one could wonder why the aggregates are often treated in general as impermanent, as a burden, thus suffering. As in "form, feeling, etc is impermanent, suffering etc". Did the ones compiling the suttas make an error, or do we have to interpose the part 'clinging to' ourselves?
Or is the term clinging-aggregates just indicating that the aggregates can be clung to? And so the aggregates and the clinging-aggregates aren't that different? To me it's those latter and let me explain why.
First of all, from a textual point of view, for example this quote would be very hard to interpret without that view: How can one not cling to aggregates subject to clinging?.. Seems to be a contradiction.
Now, from a practice point of view, suffering is very broad, it isn't just that what is difficult to bear, but it's everything that's impermanent, everything that isn't nirvana, that isn't satisfying is what I would put under the label of suffering. For example we also have another defenition of suffering which says nothing about clinging or not clinging. It doesn't mention this is not true for enlightened ones, or not true when there is no clinging etc. In fact it just says the body (and other senses) is suffering: Now one could counter this by saying, wait a minute, the third truth said: "And what is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering? The letting go of craving." But that doesn't say letting go of craving has as an immediate result the cessation of suffering..
So to say everything apart from final nirvana is still suffering in one way or the other, to me that's a more logical point of view to take - although it is more challenging perhaps. But it is not just to make a point, I think it is also very useful, for it makes craving for a state of being without suffering less likely by recognizing suffering is inherent in existence. Also you can't change your body, the body is not-self. All that is not-self is suffering, because it can't be controlled, it's out of our range. I would call that not satisfying and thus dukkha. This makes it easier for people to stop struggling their body, and for example people with chronic pains may easier accept that it is just that way, just suffering.
So one could also use such a view as a tool, at least until the point tools aren't needed anymore. At that point we'll just know.
Metta!
One of the grandest sites (and sights) in North America is standing on Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park and looking out over Yosemite Valley. If you haven't been there, I could describe it to you. I could even show you a photograph of it. But neither of those options is comparable to standing there, 3,300 feet above the valley floor.
And I rather suspect that some of the folks here who are being so cavalier about pain and suffering, are young enough that they probably haven't experienced intense pain and suffering. Perhaps they can point to some pain and suffering they've experienced, but they don't understand that it's all relative. Perhaps they've had a broken shoulder, which is certainly pain and suffering; but that broken should will heal over a relatively short period of time. Perhaps they haven't experienced a heart condition which will permanently restrict them; will cause them to have nights when they truly wonder if they will be alive the next morning; will make them contemplate life in a nursing home, and so forth. Perhaps they've experienced breaking up with someone they have loved for a few months. Perhaps they have not experienced the permanent loss of a son.
@Poptart, think about what you said: "Suffering can be a blessing...". If you really believe that, I assume you go around wishing pain and suffering on the people you love. Do you wake up in the morning and think to yourself, "Gee, I hope I discover that I have cancer of the pancreas today"? I don't think so. I think you need to rethink the use of cliches. Yes, sometimes we learn things from bad experiences; in fact, sometimes the most effective learning is through suffering. But I still don't think that such suffering is a blessing, particularly when there are easier ways to learn such lessons. It's sort of like saying that whipping children is the most effective way to teach discipline. But, most of us no longer think that whipping children is the best way to teach those lessons.
I often find myself disagreeing with @Sabre, but not this time. I think he has a much more realistic grasp on the reality of pain and suffering and how to use Buddhism to manage it in one's life.
With all due respect to @Jason, actually living through intense pain and suffering is not the same as reading about pain and suffering in Buddhist scriptures.
Having said all that, I'm not saying that intellectualizing the concept of the elimination of pain and suffering is all bad. Indeed, it may help prepare one to better cope with intense pain and suffering when it does come. I know Christians and Buddhists who use their faith as tools to better cope with suffering, but I've yet to meet the cancer patient who says, "Nah, it doesn't matter, I feel on top of the world!". What I have heard is the person dying of cancer who says, "Well, I'm dealing with it, and there are still things in life to enjoy." But that's not same as banishing pain and suffering; it's just putting pain and suffering in perspective. It's still there.
I don't consider it a cliche. Often times what we consider the worst events that could happen to us turn out to be the opening of a new lease of life.
There is an obvious contradiction in "sometimes the most effective learning is through suffering" and "but I still don't think that such suffering is a blessing". Would you prefer people remain unawakened? And what are these "easier ways" you speak so glibly of?
Let's take the example of my grandfather, who learned smoking was bad through emphysema and lung cancer...and radiation and chemotherapy...and death. I wish he could have learned that smoking was bad the same way I did...by reading about the health risks and using common sense.
Many, perhaps most, lessons to be learned can be learned easily or through much adversity. I think some people are just more stubborn and have to learn lessons the hard way, while others can more easily change their viewpoints. Sort of like math. Some get "it" rather easily; some suffer through "it". And often, it's the mindset which is there. I used to have students (mostly girls) who said things like, "I can't do science, and my mother said she could never do science either"; a learned mindset; a foolish mindset. While I found boys "got" science easier than girls, my top students were usually girls. What was the difference? Mindset.
If it's not suffering anymore, can you still learn the lesson?
Ok, my mind is about to go wrap itself up around itself for a while now I've said that (a million new questions just popped up)
It is noteworthy that in a Zen-monastery the cook is the second most important person, right after the Roshi. The cook can ruin the monastery or make it a success.
The influence of our diet and habits on our mental wellbeing - I’m convinced - is huge.
So before studying and discussing sutras’s and before meditating; stop bad habits like smoking, drinking and over-eating. It’ll be half the way. Getting our vitamins and minerals and doing some exercise will do the rest.
Sometimes I wonder if Buddhism is a pointless mind-game we play, while our bodies attain Enlightenment without us noticing it.
2. Now, there is another kind of suffering that cannot be avoided merely by doing the smart or wise thing...such as the example you give of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was born with a heart problem. It didn't matter how I ate or exercised...sooner or later I was going to suffer because of it. That kind of suffering can't be avoided by making good and wise decisions. But to be honest, many of the problems we suffer from are of our own making.
3. What was Buddha's purpose in teaching? To help people learn to eliminate suffering (and a few other things, as well). What are all the examples in Buddhist scriptures for? Learning to make wise decisions to avoid personal suffering or avoid making other people suffer. Yes, avoidance of situations that lead to suffering can often (not always) eliminate suffering. Otherwise, there is no reason to read Buddhist scriptures or follow Buddhism. Actually, it's very much about intellectualizing decision making and problem solving tactics in life.
The place I'm staying at has internet, so I thought I'd check in and see how things have progressed. Don't have a lot of time, so I can't give a detailed response, but a couple of quick comments should suffice for now. First off, I think you make some good points. It's not so much that I disagree with you as I think dukkha has more than one connotation, i.e., dukkha as an experience and dukkha as a characteristic of phenomena, and I'm stressing the former while you're stressing the latter.
For example, SN 22.48 makes a clear distinction between the aggregates and the clinging-aggregates. And in SN 22.22, the five clinging-aggregates are described as a burden to be cast off, which I'd suggest means that one doesn't literally 'cast off' form, feeling, perception, fabrictions, consciousness, but that one does so by relinquishes craving (which the the requisite for clinging) in relation to them, making them no longer a burden: That said, I agree that the aggregates are still dukkha in sense of being inconstant, not-self, and subject to cessation, even for an arahant, who's also still sensitive to pleasure and pain. It's just that they're no longer difficult to bear or a source of suffering for one who has rid their mind of craving. Now one could counter this by saying, wait a minute, the third truth said: "And what is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering? The letting go of craving." But that doesn't say letting go of craving has as an immediate result the cessation of suffering.
That may be. It's certainly possible, and I think you make a strong case that letting go of craving may not have an immediate result in the cessation of suffering in the present. However, there are many places in the Pali Canon where nibbana is expressed in positive terms, and where the experience of nibbana is describe as being blissful or absent the mental component of suffering that accompanies the experience of physical pain (see Lily de Silva's "Nibbana as Living Experience" and the The Questions of King Milinda for a couple of references), not to mention anecdotal evidence in the form of testimonials from those who have supposedly achieved it themselves (e.g., see Ajahn Maha Boowa's Arahattamagga Arahattaphala).
Either way, I think that the attainment of nibbana is clearly a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience, opening one up to a state of mind that's said to be unshakable, total, permanent, and free; and I'd hazard to guess that our experience of, and reaction to, pain and suffering is never quite the same afterwards.
I think we all agree that the body is in fact a problem, but most important is the mind, because that's where we can really make a difference.