--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > Seeing all people as "suffering" is really a shallow > > > understanding on the human condition IMO. > > > > Well, it's certainly been a popular one with > > folks who are generally held to have been > > exceptionally wise--Jesus and Buddha, just for > > two examples. > > I agree with your Buddha point from what I have read. His > first tenant is that life is suffering, right?
(Tenet, not tenant. Common mistake.) Yes. I don't have enough > information about his life to have an opinion about his wisdom. > I do disagree with that first premise completely. Life is not > suffering just because pleasure is transitory. There are definitional issues involved. The ending of some happiness or pleasure is included in what is meant by "suffering" in this context. You were happy, you were enjoying some pleasure, now you're not. That not-happiness, that not-enjoyment is suffering in this view. It doesn't just mean terrible physical or mental anguish; it's much broader than that. > I don't associate Jesus's message as being the same at all. It's phrased somewhat differently, but it's the same idea: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." Again, it's impermanence that leads to suffering. You have these treasures, which bring you happiness, but then something happens, they deteriorate or are taken from you, and that happiness ceases. Can even refer to relationships: You have a wonderful loving relationship, but then the person becomes ill and dies, or meets somebody else and falls in love with them, or whatever. For Jesus the alternative was storing your treasures in heaven (whatever he meant by "heaven"), where moth and rust don't destroy and thieves don't break in and steal. It's parallel to Buddha's Nirvana. Jesus added, "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." If what you value isn't transitory, your happiness will be permanent; you will not suffer. The implication is, to me, that this state can be achieved during life. For Buddha the solution was nonattachment to the impermanent things of life. Pivoting to MMY's teaching, nonattachment is when one is identified with Self--which is permanent and unchanging-- rather than self, which is transitory. It's really all the same basic idea. Obviously, you're less likely to *recognize* that life is suffering if you happen to be fortunate in your career, your relationships, your resources, your physical and mental health. But any or even all of these could be taken from you at any time. If that were to happen, would you remain entirely undisturbed? Would your level of happiness change? > Our lives represent the counter evidence to the claim that > life is suffering. Given our head start in this world we > would have to really work at it to make our life a state of > suffering IMO. Gee, I could be hit by a car when I go out later to get some milk at the 7-Eleven. I could have a seizure and be diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor like Ted Kennedy. My SO could leave me. Any number of things could happen that would turn my relatively comfortable life into a mess. > Maharishi's claim that life is bliss (once you have taken all > his courses and reach his goal state) also misses the mark for > me. It is the mixture of bliss and suffering that defines > what I consider life to be. And each polarity has its different > gifts to make our life richer. See, as I understand it, in enlightenment those gifts, that richness, not only doesn't go away, it's vastly intensified: the bliss is both polarities combined.
