Mudita Journal

Buddhism and Suffering

March 21, 2003 · Filed under: Intellectual
Share

Just posted to Mudita Forum, on the Wake Up to Your Life thread….

Peter Saint-Andre writes:

I must say I am finding it hard to accept McLeod’s (and reputedly the Buddha’s) statement that the central problem in life is suffering. I’m sure there are many valuable methods and techniques within the Buddhist tradition, but as far as I can see right now the root of the tradition is a misunderstanding of the meaning of life. Am I missing something? Does ‘dukha’ perhaps mean something other than what a modern Westerner would understand by “suffering”?

McLeod’s discussion of the significance of suffering is, from what I’ve seen, consistent with that of many other Buddhist scholars. The specific translation of “dukkha” (a more common spelling than McLeod’s) does vary somewhat, however.

Author David Brazier translates it as “affliction,” to emphasize its inevitability, like old age, sickness, and death (and taxes?). Other authors have translated it as “unsatisfactoriness” or “mental suffering,” to emphasize the way in which suffering can arise from inner resistance to what is, or any unconscious reluctance to accept the reality of one’s experience. Buddhist scholar and meditation teacher Leigh Brasington translates it as “shit,” as in “shit happens.”

But to newcomers, these are fairly academic distinctions. The basic meaning appears to be fairly consistent: It basically means suffering.

So—is suffering “the central problem of human experience” and “still the central issue today,” as McLeod writes? Peter writes that this would be “a misunderstanding of the meaning of life.” I’m not sure most Buddhists would say that “suffering is the meaning of life,” but they would certainly say that suffering, and our reactions to it, provide a window into the most meaningful aspects of life.

If you don’t see how this can be true, read Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, which relates his experience in the Nazi death camps, and the spiritual events he saw take place there. Or talk to someone who has lived through cancer, and came out a better person on the other side (rather than letting it break their spirit). Or someone who suffers from chronic pain. Or diabetes. Or chronic anxiety or depression. Or….

I suspect these perspectives won’t reach anyone who isn’t willing to look deeply at the role and significance of suffering in his or her own life. (Incidentally, I would certainly assume Peter is someone who is open to this.)

In his blog entry on this same subject, Peter writes that “McLeod presents the Buddha’s fundamental insight as the centrality of suffering in human life. That may have been true 2500 years ago on the Indian subcontinent, but in today’s world that claim simply does not resonate, at least for me.”

On a related note, I’ve always liked Ayn Rand’s injunction that we should focus on the “auspiciousness” of the universe, on the ways that happiness is our natural and appropriate state of consciousness. But when I read about her life, this perspective strikes me as something of a self-delusional tonic; she seems often to have been quite unhappy.

In my own life, I’m finding Rand’s perspective on this subject is only partially helpful. It’s true that life possesses tremendous opportunities for joy. But my greatest joys are often achieved, not through minimizing the significance of suffering, but by showering the suffering that I do experience with consciousness.

So that is my personal experience. But is suffering still a major force in society? Consider how many different professions are almost entirely dedicated to addressing, treating, or responding to significant forms of suffering. Here are a few, just off the top of my head:

physicians, nurses, EMTs, chiropractors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, hospital administrators, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, marriage & family therapists, social workers, police, firemen, judges, all the branches of the military…

I could go on (and on), but I think the point is made: Huge portions of modern society are devoted, in whole or in part, to addressing physical and emotional suffering.

Have these professions succeed, in the modern world, at eliminating the problem of suffering? I don’t think any of the aforementioned professions are in danger of putting themselves out of business.

On the contrary, while we’re getting better at addressing some of the most basic problems (especially in the areas of disease prevention and the mass production of goods and services), other problems are probably getting worse (anxiety, depression, and mass murder all come to mind). And right now we’re just talking about modern industrial countries. What about the rest of the world?

So to me, the case for the significance of suffering, once we look at it closely, seems overwhelming.

Does this mean we resign ourselves to suffering, or become taciturn? No, but it does suggest that there are whole areas of life that we may be blind to, and controlled by just the same, if we don’t consciously acknowledge their significance and respond to them appropriately. I find Buddhism helpful in doing the latter.

Posted by Joshua Zader · Trackback URL · Link
blog comments powered by Disqus