Maitreya | On Suffering
On Suffering
Response to elecmisra4964 on JLL YouTube upload: Why Extend Good Faith to Buddhist Masters?
The comment:
The attainment of the deepest levels of rigpa do not correspond in any deep way with status in the overall sangha. The fact is that very few people attain to these states. A Buddhist master such as the Dalai lama would thus be expected to be reasonably accomplished in meditation and in the promulgation of Buddhism itself, not necessarily to be an enlightened master in this deeper more literal sense.
Moreover the purpose of Buddhism is not enlightenment in this deepest sense but rather freedom from suffering, by means of right view and sense restraint. This attainment alone is deemed worthy of reverence, even just to be knowledgeable about it is deemed to be of value to the community.
Thus one might say that there are levels of depth to the subject and it is not a matter of its being all at the highest level or else all baloney. Its more like a spectrum if you will. As with all things human there is not necessarily any real achievement that corresponds to ones status in the sangha, however there usually is because the high status individuals tend to have been engaged in training and practice for the longest time. And this is documentable, so there is usually some correspondence between status and attainment.
Obviously a Buddhist monk, except in so much as he is genuinely wise cannot be deemed an expert in much beyond buddhism as you rightly point out. Moreover if a person cannot see the value in the tradition or its pursuit then that is that persons value judgement, but most people see philosophical and existential value in the tradition, though it isn’t always easy to evaluate it.
A final point to the questions you raised, which are interesting and various – it just so happens, in my view, that the training encouraged by Buddhism for the freedom from suffering ALSO serves to prepare a person for deeper levels of meditative state, whose deepest levels happen to correspond to those of rigpa which are deemed to be the eternal element of human consciousness and thus of obvious spiritual importance for those inclined to believe in them, rare though they be.
The condition is not disembodied in the usual sense of the term (out of the body experience) but, rather (as I understand it), like a merging of consciousness with the infinite. Thank you for your very thoughtful discussion of this matter I hope this long answer may have been of some use to you and your community.
Lama Luv Mutt Response: audio
The four Noble Truths: 1 the truth of suffering (sarvam dukkham), 2 the truth of the cause of suffering (trishna, desire, craving, attachment to the transient or impermanent), 3 the truth (satya) of the end of suffering i.e., the end of craving, 4 and the truth of the path (marga) that leads to the cessation of suffering (nirodha) : Eightfold Right Action.
The formula contains three characterizations of suffering — it permeates everything, it is caused by desire, it can be ended by cessation of desire — and one proposed solution. It is clear on its own terms that this formula does not lead to enlightenment, rather, to the end of suffering. In that sense, the objective of participation in the Sangha is to end or overcome suffering. Correct. The inference that following the Eightfold Noble Path has anything to do with enlightment (sambodhi) is wrong.
My objection to these propositions is not doctrinal or philosophical. It is existential and empirical. I find they do not stand up to scrutiny, go against common sense, and do not present a clear, complete, and testable/provable interpretation of human experience.
The claim that everything suffers or that suffering permeates all ordinary life is clearly untrue.
The claim that desire, trishna or tanha, is the cause of suffering is also not existentially true. It does not measure against the spectrum of human experiences. I prefer to translate trishna, not literally as denoting desire, but more by the connotation of frustration or exasperation. I reject the wholesale condemnation of desire, which is irrational and anti-life. Also, I deem it instructive to observe attachment to suffering distinguished from suffering itself. One can suffer from not having what one desires and equally so by having it. In both cases, attachment to the suffering is the problem, not desire itself.
Also, I hold Buddhism at fault in not making a clear and rigorous distinction between inner or self-generated suffering and suffering caused externally, by perpetration, harm inflicted intentionally by another or others. To my knowledge, this distinction cannot be found in any scriptures or doctrines, nor have I encountered it in the discourse of Buddhist teachers living today.
How about, rather than condemn desire as the cause of all suffering, accepting that desire is the property of life and so, if suffering arises from it, the existential challenge is to handle the suffering and not negate desire. The quest to eliminate suffering in some ultimate way in oneself or others or both, is a false ideal. It is an impossible standard like the tzaddik (ultra-righteousness) of Judaism. To let it be known openly to the world that you seek to end or transcend suffering and thus attain compassion and serenity is nothing but an excuse for virtue-signalling.
Rather than transcend suffering, there is in my experience a genuine and provable option to undergo suffering as a path of transcendence. You don’t transcend it, you treat it transcendentally.
“You can’t be happy unless you suffer.”
Paco de Lucia
I find in these seven words an excellent refutation of the Buddhist doctrine on suffering. After all, common sense would inform you that suffering versus happiness is not an either/or proposition, not a zero-sum game. Throughout you life, your can undergo both happiness and suffering. This is so obviously true to life that it seems almost unnecessary to say it. Many instances prove its veracity. One example: I suffered atrociously from the death of an animal, my cat Nikita, but within that suffering I also found immense happiness. Not only the happiness of having know Nikita which endures in me, but the gratitude for what she gave me through her death.
Of course, it is possible and often happens that someone handles suffering badly and even gets hooked on it by attachment — hence drama, abuse-bonding, neediness, neurosis, narcissism, repetition compulsion, various addictions, the beat goes on. Suffering comes in life so that you can learn to master it, not eliminate it. Which is to my mind the coward’s option.
To suffer transcendentally is really possible, testable and provable. In the Pagan ethos, going back to the Greek tragedies, suffering was a factor of ennoblement. This view contrasts radically to the Judaeo-Christian view of suffering as a redemption process. If you can’t see the difference between the two, you won’t be able to apply it in your life. I said in Not in His Image that the fatal error and delusion in redemptive ideology is that it elevates the power of suffering above the power of the life-force itself.
Friday 13th September 2024