The Problem of Human Suffering.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Humm

All right Gem. You win.

I notice there is a number, quite a larg number of 'You's' in your responses, so I know you're striving to personalize the topic, but I have no interest in these things. The gigs up man, game over.

Originally Posted by moke64916

...all suffering/negativity is caused by resistance at some level...

Yes, I believe that and have some experience of it. A direct connection. Resist what is -> suffering. Very simple. Happenings, situations, pain, losses, grief, politics, emotions, whatever it might be.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Stillness_Speaks

Yes, I believe that and have some experience of it. A direct connection. Resist what is -> suffering. Very simple. Happenings, situations, pain, losses, grief, politics, emotions, whatever it might be.

It's not such a bad theory, but it isn't simple, because that sentence is said very often but still so much suffering.

We always want to have an answer, a solution, but we don't like to look at nasty things. When we speak of the problem we jump instead to the solution.

I wonder if that's really wise or it's jumping to conclusions, while the problem itself is still overlooked.

Evil causes human suffering. Nothing else.

Evil multiplies our bad feelings 2000%. Can you imagine a world where nobody actually felt bad enough for it to cause them to hurt another? Where our love was 20x more powerful than anything bad we felt?

I can explain how this works but you're unlikely to have the energetic sensitivity or objectiveness to verify what I'm saying. It took me about 7 years of single-minded pursuit of a related matter.
However, it's surely enough to ask whether God made us this way. Did God really intend for children to go through such enormous emotional suffering? Of course not. But He loves all his children, even Satan.

There are other ways that evil influences us (even in the multiple threads defending it on this board).

We are beautiful but vulnerable beings, made to do evil... by evil.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

from my perspective... i don't understand polarity or how opposing principles are a problem.

i wonder why many people have the opinion we can fix it when in all the thousands of years there has been suffering, and so many have worked to alleviate it, but to this day this world has much much suffering.

The enlightened ones... they see a world in need of healing therefore see the suffering in the world.

oh my. the objective view is not blind to the cruelty and injustice people bear and also commit, and fixed or broken as i may be, there are wars and children are brutalized and kony forces them to kill and rape.... and the scars run deep in the ones who have killed, as deep as those in the families of their victims.

so quick we are to be wise, we leap upon the nearest answer, but myself I see the mire and chaos from with it's complete insensibility.

the wise only judge you see my friend, say it is of myself i speak, and i loathe to speak at all under such scrutiny, but this issue is the crux ofthe human dilemma, and i care nothing for flacid wisdom.

My conviction is that mankind needs acknowledge the problem, and an ugly terrible thing it is, no doubt, and to realize it to its full extent, the very scale of the damned thing... butit is his nature toavert his eyes to the repulsive, and ignore it in favour of pleasing things.

I have no answer per se...only a response on this topic that is among those at the deepest crux of the human condiiton.

First...the scars. I have a lot I could say here, but I'll just say this.

The scars run deep, beyond even all those we suffer on our person, or within our person, in the course of childhood and attaining adulthood. Beyond all that, and beyond the sacred acts of forgiveness and healing that need occur there...there are still other scars.

Brutality, war, and untimely death wound us as a race (the human race) deeply, whether from prejudice, persection, random hostilities and violence and injustice...or perhaps worse, whether from targeted violence and injustice. All of these leave scars of searing pain and helpless, impotent, frustrated grief and rage. Some of these scars never fully heal, and only the resilient soul can hope to turn the open wounds into a sacred heart, healed and loving.

The other is the point you make about denial of the scope of suffering and the causes of it...and the degree to which any of us may be involved...
...versus naming it, or calling it out.

I know that for me, suffering must be named, just as love must be named. As Xan said...for me, it must be specific to me. I need to be able to say, I feel ABC about X. Whether pure joy and love or pure pain suffering, I need to be able to say, this is how I feel about X because of Y. And have someone give a damn that I exist (and think and feel) and have X expression of heart and soul. Whether of pain or joy. Otherwise, my inner life -- the expression of my soul -- has been denied its full expression, i.e., the expression that I needed and desired to attain. That too is dehumanising, and that too is a deep cause of suffering.

The expression of my full humanity, or yours, or anyone else's, does not occur in a vaccuum, just as the lives we live also occur within a network of humanity and connections. We must all be the witnesses of one another's full expression of humanity, and ideally this is where we have the opportunity to provide witness, acceptance, and love and support for one another. Our compassionate and accepting presence of one another is the one gift that each of us can bring in our own unique way for one another.

To have another individual presence say, I respect your pain and your scars, and I see you...or maybe even, I understand your pain and sufferings from my own experience, from those I have seen injured or killed in war or violence. To have another individual presence say, in general, I respect your feelings (and your thoughts), whatever they may be, and I see you. And maybe even, I understand your feelings, in general. These involve a level of spiritual healing that only occurs with individual presence and recognition. And that is something that many of us may have trouble doing, even with those to whom we are closest, much less with strangers.

Because man's inhumanity to man through overt acts of violence, deprivation, or degradation, i.e., representing the more obvious physical and emotional aspects of suffering, is only half of it. The other half is the spiritual suffering we cause by denying one another's full humanity and right to exist in expression of both thought and emotion.

That is, we cause one another deep spiritual suffering simply by failing to recognise or acknowledge the thoughts and feelings of one another. And we can facilitate great healing simpling by extending the sacred circle of our presence to witness the humanity of one another. Both thought and emotion, as all are expressions of our soul.

peace & blessings,
7L

I think...

Suffering ends, when wants end...
These "wants", sometimes disguised as needs; often bring about suffering...

Need money...
Need food...
Need shelter...
Need love...
Need territory...
Need power...
Need friends...
Need entertainment...
Need affection...

These needs; when unmet, causes suffering...
But at the same time, they are what makes us human...

I don't think we can get rid of ALL suffering, as humans --- after all, our physical body is weak, and has its needs...
To keep it alive...

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Sybilline

I think...

Suffering ends, when wants end...
These "wants", sometimes disguised as needs; often bring about suffering...

Need money...
Need food...
Need shelter...
Need love...
Need territory...
Need power...
Need friends...
Need entertainment...
Need affection...

These needs; when unmet, causes suffering...
But at the same time, they are what makes us human...

I don't think we can get rid of ALL suffering, as humans --- after all, our physical body is weak, and has its needs...
To keep it alive...

The list contains quite a mix...

We need basic physical and emotional sustenance for survival (food, shelter, love--else failure to thrive in infancy, which can be fatal and certainly can cause permanent and severe emotional and physical developmental damage).

However most would agree that humanity requires sustenance on all levels...physical, emotional and mental, and spiritual. These needs, as you note, are inherent in our humanity, in our very existence, and thus it is not a matter of either denigrating our needs (emotional denial, mortification of the flesh, etc) or rooting them out. It is not even possible to do so, beyond a certain point.

The issue IMO is not that we need to or should even try to deny or root out our need for that which sustains and nurtures us. To deny what sustains and nurtures me and the rest of humanity in their individual expressions is to deny us the full measure of our human potential.

Rather, the key is knowing the difference between that which sustenance and that which is grist.

• Acknowledging our human needs is good and healthy, i.e., those that provide foundational sustenance (physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually).
  

  These would include individual needs (food, shelter, love, the need for education, work, and self-expression) and communal/societal needs (such as fair representation, social justice, universal rights of man and of citizenship, and institutional respect for personal liberties).

• Acknowledging our deepest individual needs & desires at the soul level brings immeasurable freedom and fulfillment. These would include a need for deep and authentic connection and communion with self, with one another, and with the Source.

• Acknowledging that some of our needs & desires are neither necessary nor sustaining of our physical, emotional, or spiritual life is part of the individual work we all need to do on our journeys. (addictions, exploitative behaviours & lusts for power, greed, and excess, or violent or abusive behaviors toward self or others...and there can be societal equivalents as well)

And thus we are back to the inherent aspect of suffering.
There are many ways to approach the topic of suffering.
But denying the sustenance that we need as a species to survive and thrive is not a fruitful one, in my opinion.
Though I recognise that many, many, many people have tried. And many are trying this route even as we speak.

I look to a different path for myself. With acknowledgement and acceptance of my human needs, seeking deeper awareness of what sustains my soul. And toward the painful, difficult path of acceptance of the existence of suffering, and then going from there. There are no easy answers as to how to deal with suffering, or prevent it where possible.
But I certainly won't give up any of my humanity in order to do so.

peace & blessings,
7L

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

The list contains quite a mix...

We need basic physical and emotional sustenance for survival (food, shelter, love--else failure to thrive in infancy, which can be fatal and certainly can cause permanent and severe emotional and physical developmental damage). However most would agree that humanity requires sustenance on all levels...physical, emotional and mental, and spiritual. These needs, as you say, are inherent in our humanity, in our very existence, and thus it is not a matter of either denigrating our needs or rooting them out. It is not even possible to do so, beyond a certain point.

The issue IMO is not that we need to or should even try to deny or root out our need for that which sustains and nurtures us.
Rather, the key is knowing the difference between that which sustenance and that which is grist.

• Acknowledging our human needs, those that provide foundational sustenance (physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually), is good and healthy.
  

• These would include individual (food, shelter, love, the need for education, work, and self-expression) and communal/societal needs (such as fair representation, social justice, universal rights of man and of citizenship, and respect for personal liberties).

• Acknowledging our deepest individual needs & desires at the soul level brings immeasurable freedom and fulfillment. These would include a need for deep and authentic connection and communion with self, with one another, and with the Source.

• Acknowledging that some of our needs & desires (addictions, exploitative behaviours & lusts for power, greed, and excess, or violent or abusive behaviors toward self or others...and there can be societal equivalents as well) are neither necessary nor sustaining of our physical, emotional, or spiritual life is part of the individual work we all need to do on our journeys.

And thus we are back to the inherent aspect of suffering.
There are many ways to approach the topic of suffering.
But denying the sustenance that we need as a species to survive and thrive is not a fruitful one, in my opinion. Though I recognise that many, many, many people have tried. And are trying even as we speak.

I look to a different path for myself. With acknowledgement and acceptance of my human needs, seeking deeper awareness of what sustains my soul.
And toward the painful, difficult path of acceptance of the existence of suffering, and then going from there. There are no easy answers as to how to deal with suffering, or prevent it where possible.
But I certainly won't give up any of my humanity in order to do so.

peace & blessings,
7L

Yes... I remember Xan told me (can't quote, can't find the link >.<)... It's not about getting rid of the needs per se... It's about detaching yourself from it... Sounds good to me :)

[7luminaries]

Can you elaborate Sybilline?

I actually find it really difficult to make sense of the way most people use detachment, as opposed to how Buddhist scholars mean it, and they too use it in more than one application. What they do not mean by detachment is disengagement. That is, unfortunately, the more usual misunderstaning in the West, as that is the more common use of the word here. Again, much is lost in translation.

Most in the West hear detachment from emotion, or detachment from need, etc...and they understand it as disengaging, at least on some level. An entire intellectual, emotional, and even physical asceticism is built up in the West around denial of emotion, of physicality, and a life of training the mind to intellectually control the heart and the body, by force if you will.

This is not the understanding the Buddhist masters have by any means, at least not as they have directly conveyed to me in conversation (we have a small Tibetan monastery and temple nearby open to public), but nonetheless we are separated by culture and language and our different traditions, and this can lead to deep misunderstandings. However the translations typically use the word detachment specifically to imply equanimity and of being equally attached to all NOT disengagement.

I don't believe this sense of detachment as disengagement is what Xan would have meant either...though I don't want to speak for anyone ;) But I find it hard to imagine Xan saying disengage from your emotions. If this is what you understood by the term detachment, then please consider how deep the misunderstanding may have run, and consider how damaging (to the soul) this kind of misunderstanding could be. I think this is sadly a common enough misunderstanding that colours the perceptions of many and sends them off on a path of self-denial, on many levels, in the hopes of avoiding or mitigating suffering.

BTW I have had many instances of having to address our all-too-common deep misunderstanding of the term detachment in Buddhist writings...versus the common usage of the word in English...and I almost feel that anyone who uses the term detachment...needs a detailed qualifier...or should consider choosing another term for clarity...LOL...

peace & blessings,
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Sybilline

Yes... I remember Xan told me (can't quote, can't find the link >.<)... It's not about getting rid of the needs per se... It's about detaching yourself from it... Sounds good to me :)

Someone, many thousands of years ago spoke of detachment and Xan read it, and then told you, and these days, since buddhist philosophy is quite popular, 'detachment' is believed by many many people.

Personally, I'm quite cautious about that terminology, because how might it be interpreted? People might enter complete denial of their emotional events in an effort to 'remain detached'... and take an attitude similar to sociopathy...

What I mean is, if emotional content is there then it can be felt, but a desire to be detachment may make a person is reluctant to feel them.

Is 'detachment' yet another way to avert the eyes from the harsher things, ignore them, and turn the eyes to something much more pleasing instead?