Others' suffering = our own?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The mind is more receptive to insight when calmed. In other words, emotional self control -- involving a process of freeing oneself from attachments/aversions -- is in direct interest of gaining insight. The insight, in turn, can help manage or minimize dukkha.

Dang! I feel like I keep chanting 'freedom = self-control' like it's some sort of mantra.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Dang! I feel like I keep chanting 'freedom = self-control' like it's some sort of mantra.

Nothing wrong with that mantra!

The Hindu notion of Nirvana is "Emancipation from ignorance and the extinction of all attachment."
Nirvana definition |Dictionary.com
This is surprisingly close to the goals of Buddhism we find in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

Some would contend that the two aspects of the Hindu notion of Nirvanna are one and the same. I'm not sure about that. As note previously, steps taken toward the extinction of attachments frees the mind up for insight. This approach well documented in the Mahayana wisdom literature.

The point I wanted to make here is that emotional self-control is both an end in itself and means toward achieving what the Buddha referred to as "the vision, the knowledge, the understanding." That is, emotional self-control is not just achieving negative freedom (freedom from stress), but also achieving positive freedom of clarity that facilitates insight. At the same time, insight can help provide directive and added incentive for efforts toward emotional self-regulation.

In short, I see the development of wisdom and emotional self control as separate approaches that involve and depend upon processes that reinforce each other. That's how they are described in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

[DT Strain]

Thank you Toujour for this personal testimony - it has been very illuminating to me in my question!

Originally Posted by toujour_333

namaste all,
from my personal understanding and the way it has been taught to me by my various teachers, when you understand emptiness fully, then one leaves the self behind. at that point all sufferring is ended. however, that doesnt mean that one is no longer compassionate or able to feel empathy. but that does mean that it doesnt cause sufferring because now the person sees the truth and knows that the persons sufferring is an illusion, so he/she knows that the person isnt truely sufferring, just experiencing a delusion. then the awakened individual can then explain to the "sufferring" person the truth of empitness and then relieve said person from their delusions.

that is my understanding of it through my practice. i have experienced a small example of this in my own life. i have always been very empathetic, even to the point of taking on the sufferring of others physicallymentally/and emotionally. it made me deal with much sufferring. it wasnt until my meditation teacher taught me about emptiness and working with empathy that i stopped sufferring that way. it didnt decrease my empathy towards other, simply my own experience of sufferring. i hope this helps.

be well in peace

[DT Strain]

Vajradhara, thank you as well for your wonderful answer. I found it very useful. I think this has been my issue - that I had come to Buddhism in search of ways to expend my compassion, but need more wisdom. Excellent summary.

-Daniel

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Daniel,

thank you for the post.

there are several answers that could be offered to such a query and you've gotten some good ones already so mine will be a bit different.

provided that you have not currently put an end to dukkha (suffering is one aspect of it) there doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that you would not experience dukkha.

i have a friend that decided that he couldn't be a Buddhist due to this very conflict. to frame it in Buddhist terms, he developed his compassion but did not develop his wisdom and thus could not handle the expansive compassion which awoke within him.

the Buddha recommended the development of Wisdom prior to the development of Compassion for this very reason, in my estimation. the development of these qualities is dependent upon the individual being, naturally, and there are many cases where the recommended order is reversed or where both Compassion and Wisdom are taught and practiced interdependently.

so the succinct answer to the question is thus: the development of Wisdom.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Daniel,

thank you for the kind words.

i have the impression that many being approach the Buddhadharma as a means to increase their compassion and concern for other sentient beings. as beings ripen aspects of their character in different ways and manners this can be something like the farmer that planted a field of melons yet didn't plan on harvesting but a few. very quickly the vines from the other plants are everywhere!

there is no set way, of course, though there are some general principles which are said to be the foundation for ones practice to sustain itself, namely the development of Wisdom, in particular as it applies to ones arising compassion for other beings.

we talk of the things as if they arise independently of each other and it may seem that way in many cases however the Buddhist idea is that Wisdom and Compassion arise in mutual dependence upon each other even though we may experience some aspect more strongly than others. mainly this is due to our karmic propensity and our proximate karma when the physical form arose.

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

..... now the person sees the truth and knows that the persons sufferring is an illusion, so he/she knows that the person isnt truely sufferring, just experiencing a delusion.

I wonder if considering suffering unreal could be an attempt to avoid suffering.... that is, an attempt to make the world more manageable/tolerable by means of a magical thinking/nihilistic dogma.

I don't think the Buddha considered suffering unreal. He said life is suffering, starting with the trauma of being born. Certainly the trauma of giving birth is real.

Why would unreal suffering be at the center of a core teaching, the First Noble truth? Suffering is here and now. It will pass, but it will likely take some other form. Then it will exist in that new form. But it will be real then, too, as will be the causes that give rise to that suffering.

The Buddhist view on Emptiness tells us that experiences are relative or dependent and fleeting. It also tells us that the self does not have an essential nature. What this philosophy does not say is that the quality of human experience is meaningless. If it were, then there would be no basis for wholesome actions serving to enhance experience. Also, if the quality of human experience were meaningless, then the notion of Right Intention that is central to Buddhist ethics would have no relevance or application.

We value things that much more more knowing they are temporary. Knowing that something good and beautiful will cease in its present form can be part of our learning, and appreciation. Likewise, knowing that something is a cause of suffering that will cease in its present form can be part of our learning, and appreciation.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I wonder if considering suffering unreal could be an attempt to avoid suffering.... that is, an attempt to make the world more manageable/tolerable by means of a magical thinking/nihilistic dogma.

I can picture my Sen-sei twisting my ear and saying, "is this pain a delusion?" if I would suggest that suffering is a delusion. {His way of prompting mindfulness.}

I don't think the Buddha considered suffering unreal. He said life is suffering, starting with the trauma of being born. Certainly the trauma of giving birth is real.

Why would unreal suffering be at the center of a core teaching, the First Noble truth? Suffering is here and now. It will pass, but it will likely take some other form. Then it will exist in that new form. But it will be real then, too, as will be the causes that give rise to that suffering.

The Buddhist view on Emptiness tells us that experiences are relative or dependent and fleeting. It also tells us that the self does not have an essential nature. What this philosophy does not say is that the quality of human experience is meaningless. If it were, then there would be no basis for wholesome actions serving to enhance experience. Also, if the quality of human experience were meaningless, then the notion of Right Intention that is central to Buddhist ethics would have no relevance or application.

We value things that much more more knowing they are temporary. Knowing that something good and beautiful will cease in its present form can be part of our learning, and appreciation. Likewise, knowing that something is a cause of suffering that will cease in its present form can be part of our learning, and appreciation.

While everything around us changes, our appreciation for the good and our compassion for those suffering can remain.

[Zenda71]

The thing about suffering being an illusion is that saying it's illusion doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to hurt, it means that it doesn't inherently exist. "Empty yet appearing" is the phrase I've heard most. So, the ear twisting is empty, so you can't say it actually exists, but it appears so it still hurts. (Of course, I guess, if one takes the view of "this ear pain is not what it appears," it may change a bit from "ouch" to something else... )

[Netti-Netti]

Dukkha may involve the despair of knowing that all is fleeting, fragile, and subject to decay. In the Buddha's teachings we read specifically about the inevitability of age, illness, death and loss. Since we are always at some stage of one or more of these processes, one could reasonably say that there is nothing in life that isn't dukkha/stress/suffering. Hence it is accurate to say that life is dukkha/stress/suffering.

Someone on the forum applied the term angst and anxiety to the concept of dukkha. I can see why someone might think that but I disagree. Angst is a diffuse and unfocused concern about an unknown threat. Dukkha is more like despair based on the knowledge that disappointment is immanent and can be reliably expected to happen. It is a rational and realistic expectation that corresponds to the reality of the human condition.

Life is dukkha. Buddhism can show us how to accept the reality of suffering and work with it in a way that does not complicate things further.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Zenda71

So, the ear twisting is empty, so you can't say it actually exists, but it appears so it still hurts.

It exists for the duration that is hurts. Pain is a chemical process. It is real.

[Zenda71]

Of course it's real. I'm not saying that it isn't.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Zenda71

The thing about suffering being an illusion is that saying it's illusion doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to hurt, it means that it doesn't inherently exist. "Empty yet appearing" is the phrase I've heard most. So, the ear twisting is empty, so you can't say it actually exists, but it appears so it still hurts. (Of course, I guess, if one takes the view of "this ear pain is not what it appears," it may change a bit from "ouch" to something else... )

Perhaps a better understanding of "inherently" might be in order here:

from dictionary.com

in·her·ent
–adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
2. Grammar. standing before a noun.
3. inhering; infixed.

In other words, suffering is not permanent, is subject to change, and can be ended. The way to the ending of suffering is what the Buddha taught. {I find this somewhat analogous to the Christian concept of hope.}

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

....suffering is not permanent, is subject to change, and can be ended. The way to the ending of suffering is what the Buddha taught.

It is unclear whether suffering can be ended in any absolute sense, and I'm not sure whether the Buddha claimed this as a practical possibility.

Some Buddhists contend that one can learn to accept it and manage it without any expectation of actually ending it. This seems more realistic.

[Zenda71]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It is unclear whether suffering can be ended in any absolute sense, and I'm not sure whether the Buddha claimed this as a practical possibility.

What does suffering mean to you? And what to you mean by "in any absolute sense?"

Z

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Zenda71

What does suffering mean to you?

For starters, suffering means having a body.

And what to you mean by "in any absolute sense?"

Some renderings of Buddhism claim that a complete cessation of suffering can be achieved (in this life). I believe this is unrealistic.

Even if I am able to overcome the primary and secondary emotional/mental afflictions, I will experience the suffering associated with this form of existence as long as I have a body.