Life Is Suffering

[scameter]

I know that Buddha said that life is suffering, but did he give any special, Buddhistic remedies to that, as he did nearly everything else?

[Thomas Knierim]

Are you kidding? The entire Buddhist teaching is a remedy for suffering. It's all built on the four noble truths.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

remedies

Ever read:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

:)

[scameter]

lol no vicente, but i will, thank you. and lol Thomas, i'm not completely familiar with buddhism. what are the four noble truths?

[CSwriter1]

The gods are envious of us for we know suffering and they can not.

[scameter]

:blink: so, the gods want to know suffering? then they aren't very intelligent Gods. :D

[CSwriter1]

Without suffering there is not wisdom. If life weren't challenging, no one would want to play the game.

[scameter]

why do we have to play it?

[ming]

I know that Buddha said that life is suffering, but did he give any special, Buddhistic remedies to that, as he did nearly everything else?

lol no vicente, but i will, thank you. and lol Thomas, i'm not completely familiar with buddhism. what are the four noble truths?

Scamerter, the 4 noble truths is the first thing that you see when you open any Buddhist, for you to say I know that Buddha said that life is suffering, how do you know when you have never read the 4 noble truths? Thats funny because Buddhism is the first topic this site covers on their main site.
The 4 noble truths is as follows

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering.

I suggest you try reading it first before you make a statement like "i know buddha said"

Sorry I’m getting frustrated seeing so many spiritual gurus telling everyone how it is. I'm no better

[WilliamMckeehan]

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.


yes i agree :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[VossistArts]

hmm thats unusual. Im sure I typed a lengthy reply into this thread earlier today but its nowhere. I mustve messed up somehow. Its weird when I lose thing Ive written on the PC> I almost never feel inspired to try and recreate them. Oh well. heh

[sahyo]

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.



the origin of attachment?

;)

[scameter]

well, i am by no means a spiritual guru. i am merely a philosopher and a scientist, trying to discover things in this world and enjoy the discovering as long as i can. but, i have never read anything buddhist, as i said earlier, but those 4 noble truths do say that life is suffering which i agree with, and that suffering is caused by attachment which i agree with, of corse then non-attachment seems to lead to uncompassion unfortunately. but, then it says that the cessation of suffering is attainable; how?

[fu*]

"but, then it says that the cessation of suffering is attainable; how?"

"The origin of suffering is attachment."

Maybe Find..... "the origin of attachment"

Find it, I dare you.

fu

[scameter]

emotion.

[VossistArts]

by realizing complete detachment from clinging to desire. Desire (for pleasure) i think is the origin of attachment.

[ming]

it says that the cessation of suffering is attainable; how?

Scameter, i don't think you got the message of my last post, i said go and READ!!! I am no Buddha, i suffer, i will not bring u the truth. Buddhaism says the 8 fold path is the answer to suffering
1. Right View Wisdom
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech Ethical Conduct
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort Mental Development
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
Now, i have a feeling that your next question is going to be what is "right", please don't ask me anymore questions until u atleast look through it yourself, heres the link
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/

"The origin of suffering is attachment."

Maybe Find..... "the origin of attachment"

Find it, I dare you.

The orgin of attachment.... i once read that when we are born we are given an ego, that ego grows into what you think u are now. That ego gives you your name, it tells you what is good and what is bad, how to live and how not to live, it tells you what is up and what is down, it makes you an individual. My guess would be - the origin of attachment is attachment to your ego, to believe that you are seperate from the universe and are a individual, your pre assumptions of life.

[VossistArts]

I say desire. If we didnt want we wouldnt attach to things. :P

[venom mama]

i don't know what he might say but a good strong drink always works for me.


vodka and cranberry

[VossistArts]

Unusual for me but you make it seem attractive at the moment... er...

[scameter]

lol well, the lack of attachment is easier said than done, as are many things. but, hopefully, what Buddha taught will have some positive effect on my life henceforth. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

venomgirl: i don't know what he might say but a good strong drink always works for me.

Maybe he would say that intoxication leads to reduced mindfulness which leads to ignorance and desire which leads to suffering and rebirth. But in case of vodka cranberry that's okay. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

:lol: well, anything that leads into rebirth is something i don't want. :lol:

[CSwriter1]

I always thought the end of suffering was letting go and being detached from desire, but reading the four truths again, this isn't what was said. It was said satiation is the answer to ending suffering. That is having so much of what we desire, we no longer desire it. I really like this idea better than trying to convince myself I don't want what I do want.

Of course I can reason away some desires, such as wanting a peice of cake until I think of unwanted wieght gain, and then the desire for cake is replace by a desire to reduce my weight. So I conclude, it is not just having more than enough to satiate a desire, but also the ability to substitute one desire for another that eliminates suffering.

I tell you, when I passed 50 my whole orienation to life changed. Before 50 I felt empy and needing to fill myself with life. After 50 I feel full of life and ready to give. Now it is the quality of what I have to give, that I am working on.

I realize in the filling of myself, came many erronous ideas and now I have to sort them, and make corrections where corrections are needed, and fill gaps. :lol: filling in gaps when we are already full of ourselves can be a challenge.

This is why I favor the concept of recarnation. Like periodically I need to clear my computer and start fresh, I think periodly we need to clear our being and start fresh. This is why we do not remember all our incarnations. We couldn't have fresh starts if we returned with too much memory of a past life.

:unsure: oh and yes, I do want another life. I like life and am not ready to stop my karma.

[CSwriter1]

PS cranberry and vodka sounds just too good to resist.
I have never tried that before. Now it is something I will have buy myself when I have the extra money. Even better if it assures rebirth.

Hum, my daughter is working in a recovery place where many active addicts return nightly because it is the only place where they can have a bed. Some of these people's lives are very hard, as they are often beat up by people just looking for someone to take their rage out on. I didn't know things were this bad until my daughter began working with these people.
What a thought, to think they will have another chance at life. I like that idea.

[scameter]

:lol: well, my views are quite different from yours Cs. i do not at all want a reincarnation because i feel like that this life of mine is already full. i mean, of course there are still some things that i want to do and experience, alot actually. but that doesn't mean that i need or want a rebirth to do it in. that comes in the Taoist principle of acceptance, being able to die at any time and feel fully complete, because you have accepted everything, and i literally mean everything. patience, being one's true self, acceptance, and many more traits follow into Taoism that i find to be very practical and understandable and rather realistic for a spirituality/philosophy/way of life. i appreciate buddhism, but i am not too fond of the karmic or reincarnation beliefs of their. now, if their main teachings were ignorance is bliss, but for those who are not ignorant and suffer detachment is the only way back into happiness, which is something i believe partially, then i would like them better. but, they are too much of a religion for me to be honest. i like democracy better, Cs :lol:

[Quantum Quack]

Interesting discussion guys.!!!
I am in the process of writing a book and in it I have this little sub-story on the topic....that may be of interest:

Discussions on the nature of Suffering

. “Father”, he asked in his little 12 year old voice, ”Why is there suffering?”
They were walking along a stretch of sand, that was desolate and far from anyone and anything. The surf was rolling in and a light breeze was stirring his hair and cooling his face. The day was hot and few clouds were in the sky.
His Father looked at his son and ventured –
“Many years ago, Jol, I too asked my father this question along a similar beach on a similar day”.
Jol always found his father’s approach to philosophy very appealing for he never told his answer but suggested it.
“If we look at this beach and we see just the sand, it is barren of colour except for the sand. Let us call this sand Moo or zero.”
He leaned down and picked up some sea weed and threw it onto the sand in front of them.
“Now we see pleasure, a little piece of sea weed to contrast with the austerity of the sand”, he then picked up some more seaweed and threw it on to the sand in front of us.
“Now we have more pleasure but as we add the sea weed the contrast reduces, becomes less. The pleasure means less than it did before”
He searched a little and found some shells which he added to the seaweed.
“Now we have found a new pleasure that is contrasted against the old pleasure and the austerity of the sand.”
“Jol, “ he paused, “What do you think will happen if we keep adding new and newer pleasures to the sand?”
Jol pondered a little, he couldn’t see where this was leading to but he knew the answer was not far away, because he knew his Dad.
“Father”, Jol started, ”if we keep adding to the pile eventually the pleasure becomes pain”
“Yes, Jol, well done and what is the solution to the suffering that the pleasure has caused?”
Jol paused just for a moment before he reached down and quickly swept away the objects on the sand, clearing the sand of sea shells and sea weed and returning the sand to austerity it was to begin with.
“Well done Jol,” his father complimented, “and why did you do that?”
“Because if one returns to zero or moo one can start again thus removing the suffering that the pleasure has caused.
“That over indulgence with out returning to moo causes the suffering.”
“So”, His father continued. “Can suffering be avoided?”
Obviously the answer was no because with out suffering there is no pleasure and life would cease to be worth while.
“So, Jol, to be happy and keep suffering in perspective one must be able to clear the beach of pleasure and that is where meditation, serenity and peace can be found.”

hope it is relevant?

[scameter]

hmm. interesting story my friend, and welcome to thebigview.com. that story embodies an inquirical discussion i have been having for myself for a long time, and i really still am not sure of the answer. when your solution is reached, questions like Why can't the sand be only pleasure, with no suffering or additives therewith? or, from a more Christian viewpoint, How can evil and suffering even exist if God is only good, how could something only good make something completely opposite it? and Is suffering necessary for life, as is discussed in Taoism? your approach my friend is very Taoist, as Taoists see suffering as imbalance, and happiness as balance of aggressive and passive. but, i, as a more scientific person, am becoming more and more into the idea of chaos theory, which explains that life is merely random occurances, as is essentially discussed in the uncertainty principle and the big bang theory in science, but that that randomness can have meaning.

[Quantum Quack]

I guess the story is about how to find a point of peace in a sea of polarised extremes.

The austere sand is symbolic of the center within these extremes. If one is unable to return to center [moo] one simply will go from one extreme to the other and suffering the consequences of doing so. Being lost in those extremes with out any point of reference to guide you. By centering in Moo one has an anchour to compare with thus an ability to manage your suffering is within your grasp.

The story is mostly directed to a western audience and to those that lead hectic and and moo- less existences for ever chasing another pleasure to replace the previous pleasure. Thus never really knowing true pleasure and only the pain and anguish of addiction.
It is a story to emphasise the value of meditation as an exercise in finding that center from which to live from. The reason is that most people do not understand the value of centering and meditation in a way that is clear and makes sense.
If you or any one else agrees with it's premise maybe you could enlighten me as to how this message could be better demonstrated?

[scameter]

no, i think it was pretty well demostrated by you my friend, and in a very efficient manner i might add, for story is a very powerful writing mechanic that captures the mind of the reader. but, one question is is where did you get that word, moo? is it something from where you live or just your own invention? and, where do you live, like what country?

[Quantum Quack]

To be perfectly honest I can not recall where exactly I heard the use of the word Moo originally though I have heard it used since to describe a point of center in meditation. In my early research into Buddhism I may have encountered it. It is not my own invention. However the composition and format of the story is.
I am writing this from Melbourne Australia.

[scameter]

oh, interesting. and i assume that's where you're from too?

[venom mama]

before i wrote that a good drink fixes things and it does, as a matter of fact, i'm having one now. vodka, love vodka.



life is suffering? only if you make it that way. if you have the tools to respond here now than you are not suffering.


suffering is having no food or shelter, suffering is being abused by your parnets or spouse, suffering is an animal used to make fur coats or in research facilities.


so many people think life sucks and you know what? they really have no idea what pain is.


stop feeling so damn sorry for yourself.


go make life better for someone who really knows the agonies of life.

[Quantum Quack]

thanks Venomgirl, you have so easilly and suscinctly shown the flaw in my little story.

'tis true, it is extremely hard to find center if your stomache is empty of food. So easy to throw words around in philosophical prose where and when the "real" suffering goes un-noticed.

A small child African dying of starvation, seems to render my little essay impotent and facile.

A "reality check" for sure....thanks

[venom mama]

your welcome,
reality does suck Quantum


but at least it shows us what we have.....and why we should should really be grateful.


a full belly and a comfortable bed....

does anything else really matter?

[scameter]

what if you've already felt so much suffering and continue to, some of it being your own choice and some of it also being something not your choice, and that you have lost all of your innocence and your ability to enjoy life without seeing them as being nothing, then what? then will God come down and say hello, after enjoying torturing us? or can God get us through this? i want to be through it, more than anything in life currently, but i honestly see nothing to do. i am trying to be able to see fictional stuff as actually mattering because it matters to me and that stuff in life that doesn't matter on a grand scale that that doesn't matter because it matters to me, but that is hard. very hard. and i am lost. i don't know what to do. even my precious logic can't help me here. :(

[venom mama]

i understand what you are saying scameter.

for eight years i lived in my own wonderland. i was way out in the woods living among my flowers and all my plants and trees that i had planted. i was surrounded by animls that i had taken in and i spent my time caring for them. every day was a dream come true for me. i loved my life more than i can even begin to express. i knew about suffering because i volunteered at an animal shelter where so many animals came in it was ridiculous. i spent almost all of my waking hours there. it was such a sad place. so many animals were killed every week. one day my life changed completely. i had to leave my wonderland and my shelter where i was one of the few caring hearts.

it destroyed me. i really didn't think i could survive outside my beautiful forest. i almost gave up. sometimes i still wish i could. my heart still remains there. but i didn't give up. everywhere i look is someone worse off. someone or something that needs me. sure, i still cry over my lost forest, i was in paradise, but i must go on. no matter how much i mourn.

there are always those in need.

if you're lost, go to those with nothing, those struggling....they will help you find your way.

[Quantum Quack]

An affirmation That has always help me though times of intense ...hmmm....discovery....
"I accept the suffering as an opportunity to learn and change from"
"I welcome this suffering as a challenge that reality [God] has provided for me and the others I touch."

[scameter]

i wish i could be like you were venom. i wish i could find such a paradise. but i am not really haunted by my surroundings anymore, but by myself. and, why can't we remain in our paradisical land? why must be become removed, to "grow" into adulthood, into a leaving of a happy innocence? because society thinks one who doesn't is a bum, because what Nietzsche called the will to power seems unfortunately very prevalent in this existence. i wish it didn't, i wish we could all live in paradise, which we could if we would allow ourselves to. but, we are forced otherwise and must live by the rules of those around us. but, i wish i did know someone to talk to to help me find my way, but ways are in existance, whilst my forgotten road is misbegotten into my own inner abyss, one for which it seems bears title of no escape. lol although, i do love words, however fickle they're coming. when i am depressed they come to me swiftly, otherwise, when i am happy, they, as well as other clear thoughts, do not so easily abide. that seems to be my lot in life however, but i wish there was some other way.

interesting Quack. i'm glad that has helped you, i will think about that. :)

[sahyo]

scameter

http://www.barnett.sk/software/sos/osho/os...ks/enligh02.htm (http://www.barnett.sk/software/sos/osho/osho-talks/enligh02.htm)

[scameter]

that's very interesting. i've always liked Osho, i've read two of his books, Zen and Buddhism i think they were named. :)

[Quantum Quack]

The "orange people" as they were called here in Australia certainly were interesting I must admit.

[scameter]

who? lol

[sahyo]

:)



:)

[scameter]

:huh: :lol:

[sahyo]

:lol:

[bito]

I always thought the end of suffering was letting go and being detached from desire, but reading the four truths again, this isn't what was said. It was said satiation is the answer to ending suffering. That is having so much of what we desire, we no longer desire it. I really like this idea better than trying to convince myself I don't want what I do want.

:thumbsup:

[bito]

it destroyed me. i really didn't think i could survive outside my beautiful forest. i almost gave up. sometimes i still wish i could. my heart still remains there. but i didn't give up. everywhere i look is someone worse off. someone or something that needs me. sure, i still cry over my lost forest, i was in paradise, but i must go on. no matter how much i mourn.

vg:

Could it be that the leaving of your beautiful forest only destroyed the part of you that believed she needed this forest to survive?

And that this believing you must go on, no matter how much you mourn, is the 'birthing' of loving without a reason to love?

Perhaps?

:unsure:

:hug:

[venom mama]

maybe bito.....maybe




:loveyou:

[sahyo]

is the 'birthing' of loving


birthing?




This holy life is lived for the abandonment of becoming.

Siddhartha Gotama Buddha

[scameter]

i have begun to realize that most things we have or feel or see do not birth, except from life it's self. but rather, we see it as birthing because we discover it for ourselves for the first time, and we assimilate ourselves into life more and more the more we do discover, which to me is the entire objective of science, or should be. understanding nature so that we can become apart of it entirely. and i am not saying we were ever actually seperated from it, because there is no way we can be seperated from life, but we thought and still think ourselves seperate from it, and we do not see things as they are or everything encompased. we could never know completely the creator as the creation, but we can know our apparent place in it, and the peaceful flowing of life's river, if you will. :)

[bito]

ven :loveyou: mgirl

[bito]

birthing?




This holy life is lived for the abandonment of becoming.

Siddhartha Gotama Buddha

asheera dropped bito's quotation marks around birthing :nono: :D

There is no becoming to abandon, and yet, The Buddha says there is ...

The Buddha and bito are not disagreeing.

B)

[sahyo]

asheera dropped bito's quotation marks around birthing* :nono:* :D



is the 'birthing' of loving without a reason to love?


question marks were around "birthing"?
and referring to "birthing"?




There is no becoming to abandon, and yet, The Buddha says there is ...


was referring imagining 'becoming'



The Buddha and bito are not disagreeing


was implied "buddha and bito" "disagreeing"?

[scameter]

actually bito, we, as we grow up, grow into a false persona that we give to ourselves. this self is not really you, this current persona you are in. when we are born we are ourselves completely as we ever will be, but we lose some of that as we grow up physically and so in accordance we begin to fill those spots with lies that we think are true, whereas they are not. so, buddha meant that we live for the abandonment of becoming into this lie world we have made for ourselves, to shed that shell and become ourselves, but not really become ourselves but rather to realize ourselves. :)

[MidnightSun]

Sounds like zen, i agree completely.

[MidnightSun]

And what we have to do to realize oursleves then?

[bito]

question marks were around "birthing"?
and referring to "birthing"?

yes

bito's quote from posting to venomgirl:

And that this believing you must go on, no matter how much you mourn, is the 'birthing' of loving without a reason to love?

was referring imagining 'becoming'

as was bito referring imagining 'birthing'

was implied "buddha and bito" "disagreeing"?

asheera questioned bito's use of word birthing, then quoted The Buddha, implying disagreeing

if not what happened, then ... ?

:)

[bito]

actually bito, we, as we grow up, grow into a false persona that we give to ourselves. this self is not really you, this current persona you are in. when we are born we are ourselves completely as we ever will be, but we lose some of that as we grow up physically and so in accordance we begin to fill those spots with lies that we think are true, whereas they are not. so, buddha meant that we live for the abandonment of becoming into this lie world we have made for ourselves, to shed that shell and become ourselves, but not really become ourselves but rather to realize ourselves. :)

can scameter say 'realized self'?

:rolleyes:

:)

[scameter]

hopefully, bito :D

nothing, mid. just live. when we are born, we are ourselves completely, but we loose sight of that as we age and become illuionary into a lie-shell of ourselves inorder to replace what we cannot see anymore because we tried to see it, which is growing up. thinking. do not think, and you will not realize, and you will remain whole. feel. and it was meant to sound like zen lol i am zen

[sahyo]

bito's quote from posting to venomgirl:

And that this believing you must go on, no matter how much you mourn, is the 'birthing' of loving without a reason to love?



didn't reading venomgirl post...hehe

:D

[VossistArts]

i tend to think the answer is in abandoning the conceptual re-invention of our experience of the world around us and of ourselves. remove the imposed lables and concepts and then what we are is all there is left.

[bito]

nothing, mid. just live. when we are born, we are ourselves completely, but we loose sight of that as we age and become illuionary into a lie-shell of ourselves inorder to replace what we cannot see anymore because we tried to see it, which is growing up. thinking. do not think, and you will not realize, and you will remain whole. feel. and it was meant to sound like zen lol i am zen

To say i am zen is to think self, no?

Back on the wheel again ...

:D

:loveyou:

[scameter]

i agree venom, and bito yes, zen is life, bare, beautiful, cold, and whatever else it may be, nonchalant like a flowing river, but still continuously flowing. and it can be embraced, if we are not blinded by a lie-shell for which we have made for ourselves to blind us from ourselves then we can embrace it, and live life to it's fullest, deliberately.

[bito]

didn't reading venomgirl post...hehe

:D

hehe

:D

[sahyo]

:D

[scameter]

:think: :D

[MidnightSun]

i am zen :D

[scameter]

you cannot be zen. zen is harmonal life, life in it's purest, and it is in you, and you can live it and be apart of it and experience it, but you are not zen. no one thing encompasses all of life. it can be a facet of life, but not life in it's entirety. which many people fail to realize in their arrogance.

[MidnightSun]

i meant my believes :/

[scameter]

beliefs are usually also sprung from that lie-shell, and from youth conditioning and/or reading. one must be at peace, their mind still and clear, blank, to be able to be aware and to realize life neutrally.

[bito]

believing strives to contain (fear of) emptiness
by thinking that
as if separate
from this

:lol:

meditating strives to see emptiness

:lol:

















:)

[MidnightSun]

so u think ppl believes coz they are weak and trys to calm down themselves by religion coz they will die one day and afraid of this?

[bito]

so u think ppl believes coz they are weak and trys to calm down themselves by religion coz they will die one day and afraid of this?

weakness is not true, as the sensing of weakness comes and goes, as does the sensing of strength

fear imagines weakness and strength to be true






loving 'sees' this fearing

and :lol:

and :hug:

and :)

and ...

... no and!

:D

[bito]

midnight sun

the physical sensing of weakness, as in trying to pick up an elephant, is true

the emotional sense of weakness, as in trying to 'be' strong, or not to 'be' weak, is not true

:)

[MidnightSun]

hmm, ok maybe i misunderstood what u said.

[scameter]

yep midnight, that's right. especially Christianity, which's entire basis is that we will die into absolute happiness with something beyond ourselves, like an insurance policy.

[MidnightSun]

Life is a challenge which depends on reward in the other world - St. Augustine

I told it already but fits here too.

[bito]

hmm, ok maybe i misunderstood what u said.

:) kay

[scameter]

but i would disagree with the saint there, because i think there is no need for a challenge; life can just be lived, easily, flowingly. passively.

[MidnightSun]

sounds like hinduism and i agree ,its just flowing throw life maybe studying and doing some good too, thats a good choise ;)

[scameter]

study takes though which is not needed or wanted, and doing what you call good maens from a set, conditioned morality we all share similarly, and so neither are needed or wanted. life doesn't need them, they weren't there before we came along, and so they shouldn't be there now. we can just live easily, happily, without stress, thought moral stress, and such.

[samadhi-pants]

Those that I am surrounded with in my job, that call themselves Christians, look with pity, or disdain, upon me because unlike them, I do not believe that Christ is my saviour. And that since I do not believe as they do, I will not enjoy a wonderful sense of life ever-after. A vacation of sorts, were my needs will be cared for and where I shall be looked after like a child, or more like the servant of a king. A vengeful and angry king that, like Santa Claus, will not bestow me with wonders and gifts if I do not believe in his existence.

It matters not that unlike what they practice (unlike any form of Christianity that I have ever read) think that god loves those who are vengeful and justified for revenge. Furthermore, unlike the Bible that I have read, spit upon those unlike themselves whether they are homosexual or homeless and view those characteristics as defects in their morality even though their own prescription has told them to love thy neighbor as themselves.

So I have come to believe that it is our own self-cherishing attitudes that are our enemy. Putting ourselves or our ideals before those of others. My answer to those that think that I will not find a heavenly reward is the ultimate liberation of being last rather than first (interestingly to be found in both Christian and Buddhist writings).

Life is suffering but I'm not complaining. That's why we intoxicate ourselves and continually strive to place ourselves first, most of us don't know the way out.

Like Robert Thurman said:

if that was not the case, babies would be born laughing.

I love that quote.

[scameter]

man, first off i never welcomed you to thebigview. secondly, i like you already. your views are very similar to my father's; Christians today are more like drones who merely profess, in all hypocrisy, to believe in God, whereas the only reason they even go to that buisness they call a church is to make a picture of morality for themselves. "well, he goes to church so he's a good man." otherwise i guess, all non-Christian men are nothings, embaciles and fools, treacherous to their very selves. it really sickens me, because there are some views of Christianty, real Christianity, that i actually like. but you can't really be Christian, in most people's eyes, unless you go to that hypocritical church buisness, unfortunately. i prefer Taoism and Zen. :)

[MidnightSun]

yes me too, but im not only flowing throw the river of destiny and sitting ,doing nothing. Some ppl needs help and i cant look others are suffering, so i help as i can. Also i dont complain about life even if its suffering. I believe we havent borned just to be alive ,all that has somekind of sense and its not an accident that we're here. I dunno maybe urs reason ,scameter, is to learn about quiet and peace and later teach others to find harmony or so :think:

[scameter]

mainly. i just think that humanity shouldn't place all this seriousness and tension and stress and worry on themselves that they do. we should just live and enjoy life peacefully. and i think that is all life is meant for, from a human standpoint :)

[Quantum Quack]

The last posts have reminded me yet again one of the greatest causes of negative suffering is INTOLERANCE.

Thanks Guys......it's alwasy good to be reminded of this salient fact.

[tongue in cheek] :boxing:

[MidnightSun]

I liked ur both points ;)

[samadhi-pants]

Tolerance...

With all due respect some of the finest people that I know are Christians. I have also never directly challenged the viewpoints of those that I work with. What would be the point? But I have been confronted by those people, some of which have tried to sign me up like a pusher signs up potential junkies. And under the guise of what? Of what rewards I will enjoy.

Are most people that shallow?

Buddha Shakyamuni professed that life was suffering. He would probably have said that those that express what appear to be intolerant viewpoints do so as a reaction to that suffering: a self-cherishing attitude. And polarization is the natural byproduct of grasping and rejecting is it not?

I believe that some sort of debate on a topic that so overwhelmingly dominates the psyche of the typical American should take place somewhere and somehow. Even though I can take care of myself I find it difficult to stand by idly and watch others that are less advantaged than I be taken advantage of or become socially isolated from everyone else under the color of religion.

Maybe over time I'll develop more skillful means. For now I'll get on a Buddhist bulletin board and whine.

[scameter]

yes, hopefully. and yes, most are. and yes, there really is no point in challenging their beliefs :lol:

[venom mama]

:peace: :peace: :peace:

[scameter]

:twoguns: :twoguns: :twoguns: :D

[VossistArts]

Man, am I ever glad I dont live in the world those creepy smiley guys live in. I know Id lose it and collect every last one of them in a great big gumball machine and leave it in a walmart somewhere...

[venom mama]

suffering is what happens to the animals at the chinese fur farm that i watched a video on

they are pulled out of their cages knocked hard on the ground and skinned. they are still alive and trying to fight but to weak from the blow to the head. half way through the cutting the fur is pulled off them, like pulling a shirt over your head.

one was still alive after he was thrown on the dead pile and the camera zoomed in on his face. his was holding up his wobbling head and his eyes were so bright with pain and confusion. furless. it makes me cry just to type this because i see the image so clearly.

if i got the chance i'd make the people who do that suffer. i'd **** them up so bad. they'd know hell on earth, the deepest, lowest plane of hell.
i'd be the devil for a while, just to get them.

and i'd enjoy it.

:angry:

[Thomas Knierim]

venomgirl: i'd be the devil for a while, just to get them.

Of course, then you would merely perpetuate suffering and add to the problem. Your emotional reaction is understandable, but not very rational. Sometimes I feel like that in a Chinese restaurant. For example, I begin to imagine how the patrons would like wearing that shark fin soup on their suits. But I doubt that spilling shark fin soup would be the right course of action.

Animals live in a lot of pain even without human interference. They get torn apart, eaten, squished and burned all the time. They starve and perish by the thousands. It seems that suffering is built into their existence. We couldn't prevent it, even we all become vegetarians.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

tk: Animals live in a lot of pain even without human interference. They get torn apart, eaten, squished and burned all the time. They starve and perish by the thousands. It seems that suffering is built into their existence. We couldn't prevent it, even we all become vegetarians.

vg: they are pulled out of their cages knocked hard on the ground and skinned. they are still alive and trying to fight but to weak from the blow to the head. half way through the cutting the fur is pulled off them, like pulling a shirt over your head.

so keep buying furs thomas?

:)

[Thomas Knierim]

asheera: so keep buying furs thomas?

Not for me, Asheera. I live in the tropics. A loincloth will do. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[MidnightSun]

im vegetarian myself too but i agree thomas as well, animals gets lots of pain without intertupting of humans, anyway we must not do that what ashera was writing about anyway. Animals has souls too and i believe that honestly.

[venom mama]

thomas,

yes, in the wild animals do get killed by other animals so that the predator can survive.

on a fur farm or in a slaughter house such cruel methods are used that it is deplorable. are we not as humans supposed to be the more intelligent? are not the strong supposed to protect the weak? you thomas say that animals have suffering built into their existence.

so its ok then that in korea the dogs and cats are burned alive by blow torches or boiled alive because the koreans think adrenaline rushed meat tastes better, its ok that animals are skinned alive so people can wear THEIR fur, its ok that animals die horrible by slowly bleeding to death in slaughter houses crying out to each other, shall i continue. all of these acts are done by the hands of people.

have you ever heard the crying of a dying cow? seen the look in its eyes as its throat is cut and its pulled up by its hind legs to hang until it dies. i have. and so many other miserable deaths too. they fight death. they all do. and they cry and their afraid.

but you say that suffering is built into their existence, so its ok. that we can do nothing to change anything.

well, you're wrong.





don't you think we should be better than that? so many think themselves enlightened and more highly evolved, so shouldn't we know better than to cause such agonies?

[Thomas Knierim]

venomgirl: but you say that suffering is built into their existence, so its ok. that we can do nothing to change anything.

No, I did not say that. I said that we cannot do much about the suffering that occurs naturally in the animal world. But we can certainly do something not to add to it. And it's not about the poor animal soul that needs rescue, but our own (I am using the term "soul" loosely here).

The more important part of my message was this: As long as you inflict suffering on those who inflict suffering on others, you are merely a transformation gear in the machinery of suffering. You are part of it.

Cheers, Thomas

[venom mama]

thomas,

ok, i understand now. you're not wrong anymore.




those people who commit those atrocities sure do deserve some sort of retaliation against them though. people like that have no souls. they are empty of any sort of emotion .

all they know is greed and cruelty.

that, i do not understand.

[MidnightSun]

Try to stop that cruelty machine of pain but dont get in pain urself coz u will be part of it. And that is suffering too.

[sahyo]

asheera: so keep buying furs thomas?

Not for me, Asheera. I live in the tropics. A loincloth will do. :lol:

:D hehe...yes read are living thailand
...was referring people buying furs

cheers

[scameter]

is that not true for all life, and really everything else too, in existence? we will die. inevitably. and, we suffer throughout our lives. but, the real question is why? Christianity says God is testing us, which i think is just another way to say "i don't know". and Buddhism says it's an illusion, but all of this could be an illusion we really can't be certain, so we can only focus on this for now. so, why is there such inevitable and excurciating pain, followed merely by a possibly purposeless death? is that not a waste? i mean, what could all of that, intertwined with everything else in existence, mean? those are the questions that haunt my mind :lol: unfortunately.

[venom mama]

scameter
that's why you have to live everyday to it's fullest, committing random acts of kindness. the only one that can make life better is you. yes, we will die, there is no doubt. it's up to you though whether or not you truely live. not all life is suffering. don't wory to much about what christianity says and what buddhism says. life is how you define it. good, bad, happy or sad, wild, mild, bright, dark. the road is yours to travel. don't let life haunt you, don't dwell on suffering and meaningless death. it's pointless. be happy.

[venom mama]

asheera



i bet thomas looks real damn yummy running around the jungle in his loincloth.

[scameter]

everything could be pointless, venom. and, even if it is to me that isn't always in my ability to see. but, i do try, and no-mind lets me not think much at all except how nature wishes me to.

[Thomas Knierim]

venomgirl: i bet thomas looks real damn yummy running around the jungle in his loincloth.

Well... visit me in Thailand and I show you how to travel by liana. :lol: By the way, "committing random access of kindness" is a good idea. I like the wording.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

:D me too.

[vicente]

I agree with Thomas

Thomas:
Are you kidding? The entire Buddhist teaching is a remedy for suffering. It's all built on the four noble truths.

The Four Noble truths are so simple,...Suffering is a consequence of our desire for things to be other than they are.

For a less simple version, try:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

V
:)

[venom mama]

i do love swinging through the trees. :hug:

[sahyo]

asheera



i bet thomas looks real damn yummy running around the jungle in his loincloth.



vgirl



seems thomas swinging trees hehe

;)



hehehe





:love:

[scameter]

swinging period with you would be nice, venom :loveyou:

[venom mama]

you're very sweet scameter.

[MidnightSun]

Get a room!

[scameter]

:lol: mid. appealing to one another kindly doesn't always mean sexuality my friend.

i try, venom. :)

[MidnightSun]

Yes, but i wanted to make a joke :P

[scameter]

:D oh :P

[MidnightSun]

scam-dude: appealing to one another kindly doesn't always mean sexuality my friend

Get a room doesnt always mean sexuality either :P maybe i though u were tired... :think:

[scameter]

but most likely not.

[VossistArts]

maybe you thought it looked like rain, or heard there was a herd of stampeding elk coming his way. thats what I thought you meant..

[MidnightSun]

appealing to one another this kind of kindly usualy means sexuality too :P

ta-ta-ta-ta whos the best whos the best... :ph34r:

[scameter]

oh. sorry venom

of course. if one is kind it either means 1 he's retarded mentally, 2 he's homosexual or extremely feminine, or 3 he's sexual, right? pure, no-strings -attached kindness does and can not exist with humanity right?

[MidnightSun]

I never said that. So u think appealing kind coz of sexual attraction to other is bad?

[scameter]

i never said it was bad. i just think it is not everything. if love were mere physical attraction it would not be love. if so, if i man say knew exactly the kind of woman he likes physically, and got in a room full of them he wouldn't know where to start, if love is just physical. but if love is individual and pure, then a man could stand in the same room with the same women he likes physically and choose one inparticular based on things like personality, mentality, and feeling. :)

[MidnightSun]

So, yes, but i only feel those kind of feeling for females...Is that bad coz im not a bi? :lol:

[scameter]

i never said it was bad, and you probably do feel more towards women. but, even if you will not admit it, you have some tendency towards men. if even for just a short time and/or subconsciously.

[MidnightSun]

Even if u dont admit it, but i dont.

[scameter]

well, as i said, even if you don't admit it. you obviously wont, which merely proves my point.

[MidnightSun]

Well i dont care, dont believe it if u dont want to.

[MidnightSun]

Well such as things as soul might be compatible with another soul, and those two meets in earth ,for example - both heterosexual men, so they should have an attraction or sumthin, coz they could were husband and wife in other life or sumthin, but anyway such as thing as attraction is not important to me, its just a humans thing and i dont care, so whatever.

[scameter]

well, here's how i see that whole view of "well, it's physical, human, and so is irrelevent; only the soul is relevent." to me, anything that's here has meaning merely because it exists, as i have said previously. and so, if you do have attraction to either a male or female there is absolutely no shame in admitting it, and even if you feel you cannot admit that you have attraction to males too, even if it is merely subconsciouly, that's ok, because then obviously you weren't meant to or will in time. :)

[venom mama]

as long as noone gets hurt there is no reason for shame.

[scameter]

true. but in my previous statement noone would get hurt. and, if someone is offended or something from someone admitting their homosexuality than i'm sorry, because it is the homosexual's right to be as they are, which happens to be homosexual. and so if someone is offended by it then they should just not see it.

[venom mama]

go to peta.org and watch the video of the chinese fur trade, where they use dogs and cats

it's right on the first page when you go to peta.org

click on the video
watch it



suffering

[scameter]

i can't. i'm sorry. i love animals too much to watch them suffer.

[cooxman]

We suffer mostly because we invite stress into our lives, by not knowing when to say "no" to others, and when we are resistant to necessary positive change. In essencse, one suffers when one seeks to do the impractical, such as control things that out of one's span of control, and when one does not seek to establish a firm identity, and seek to atain a true state of resiliance to the changes of one's environment.

so i suspect the path to minimized suffering would be somewhere along the lines of following principles as follows:

+ Never ever think ,say or do anything that you do not really want to - unless coerced beyond your control :)
+ Never make any decisions based on friendship, love or because it feels good, and all other similar suicidal social concepts and emotional states, do it because it rationally works in your favor, resource ( psychological and physical )wise.

.....next issue....... learning to just be............

[scameter]

I honestly believe that we suffer for two reasons: imbalance and a means to grow and test our true selves. Which another part of me believes is horseshit, but i think that the other part is also true. This is true though: There are always two sides to everything. :)

[venom mama]

what the hell?


who cares about personal, make myself think i'm suffering
pity parties aren't suffering
there is no pain in finding ones self




as for not wanting to watch the video because you love animals to much?

bull


if you love animals so much then you will watch these videos so that you will know something has to be done to help them.

remember that there the ones going through it
not you

it will scar you for life but you will change the way you live a little at a time the more you learn and see what really goes on in fur farms and slaughter houses

it will make you their advocate
it will make you their voice



peta.org

[scameter]

What arrogance.

Well venom, you seem to know all the answers to every question and issue ever to occur in time and space, and it's cause and meaning. So then, unless you have already written a book of your incredible, infallible wisdom and knowledge, tell me the answer to everything, before we continue.

[...]

tell me the answer to everything, before we continue.

..that one is easy: 42. Know your classics scam :lol:

[cooxman]

actually its, 0 + 1 = 1 , everthing can be represented by 0's and 1's but it all adds up to ' 1 ' thing.
math is flawed , the correction : 1+ n = 1 , think about it, iff ure REALLY adding things together ure only gonna end up with one thing, everytime.

[scameter]

I'm not adding though. Numbers are merely within the limitation of the human psyche. I mean everything, even beyond us and our understanding. Completely.

[VossistArts]

The meaning to everything? Spiraling from wide to narrow, perhaps bottom to top, a bit of ragged energy becomes more and more refined with timeless time along a path that is no trail. Eventually it progresses to create for itself a unique experience where it manifests self awareness. Tied to impermanance the reflection, an organism bound by laws created by its collective self awareness, it struggles to see through itself, to see its transpersonal self, to become aware that each and every time its thrusted itself into a mirror environment, its fascination with its illusion of a personal self has caused hardship; suffering. The suffering is built from and emmanes from a blockage that prevents the self awareness from grasping its purpose, from seeing its everlasting truth. This blockage which causes self created suffering inspires a restlessness, a desire to know its own truth:
The transpersonal self, and all of the apparitions manifested by it are its self inspired servants; Its true body is nameless, faceless, formless and formed, unfetterred, unrestrained, existing apparently only to know itself as One, to become complete, and therefor whole..........

[scameter]

Hmm. Even though the fact that all of that is from your viewpoint only goes without saying, my accusation was right: you are arrogant enough to believe that you know everything.

[venom mama]

why you want to be a pooh pooh face to me scameter

[scameter]

I'm not trying to be a "pooh pooh face", venom. You were just being arrogant. And i despise arrogance.

[venom mama]

why was i being arrogant


because i tell you not to feel sorry for yourself

well you shouldn't
there is alot of grief out there and we all experience painful things
but you got to always move on from personal downs

there is to much out there that needs to be done

it's not all about you
it's not all about me

i'm not arrogant little boy
but i have lived
and i have done a good bit
and i'm not even close to being done

so maybe one day i will figure it all out
maybe tomorrow

but
maybe not

[sahyo]

little boy
but i have lived
and i have done a good bit



arrogance?

[WilliamMckeehan]

people bring all the suffering on them selfs :o sure some people have it VERY bad no food no water no house no nothing but anyone that lives in a good country and im not just talking about the US ... has it pretty good and they are the ones that bring all on them selfs ... sure life is hard everyone goes threw hard times ... :boxing: but if you realize you bring it on your self then u can defeat it ... im working on it sure it is impossible to never suffer but u can cut it down all the little things ... if u defeat all the little dealing with somthing big will be easyer but when u think it is all out to get you and ur just getting beat down by it all thats when u crumble u have one life why not enjoy it! i dont know about anyone else but im going to :lol:

[deepakgang]

We r unhappy because never ending desire for material things. Like money, power,sex. And because we are slaves of anger, lust, ego... When we truly realise the essence of life, and practise it, then only we fing happiness thats everlasting.

Like one will not hope he had spend more time in the office than with his family when he is dying.

[WilliamMckeehan]

yes that makes sence i want to be like that :D

[scameter]

But then why are those things here? I think people, in their arrogance, abuse those "material" things, even though everything is "material", but those things are here because they are, and thus are not pointless.

[deepakgang]

Its true indeed that the material things are for us thats why they are here. But what i mean is that instead of just enjoying those material things what man do is to do all sort of things to achieve it. when he knows that he cant take his wealth to wer he go after his death, he is still unhappy with the riches he has now. People are always tensed thinking about the past or worrying abt future.

I had also mentioned lust, anger etc. Anger makes one blind. He dont know wat he is doing when he is the slave of anger. What results is destruction to oneself and others.

Many discussions have been made here about life- its goal and all. Do you think that making money or having great sex is the goal? So these material things divert ones vision from the goal. They can be good and really enjoyable - once you command over them. If you let them rule you - defenitely you will be sad each day thinking of all that you missed out.

And everything is mot material. Material thing is what our five senses can sense. There are things beyond that also- only that men are bound to these five senses mostly. The senses address to our flesh(the physical us) and there is also our spiritual part(soul- if u believe so) which needs to be addressed. And that is what makes one truly joyful.

[scameter]

No you already believe you have figured it all out venom, as is shown by your arrogance, which is there. And all you just said is the main cause of the masculinity craze currently, that tells men, and gorwing too with women, to not express anything but arrogance and fake happiness, which is the main cause of oh so common male heart attacks, high blood pressure, mental problems, depression, and other things, like alchoholism. All experiences are important, all pain is important, life is relative.

Why must there be a goal to life? Here, let me quote you something from Whitman, one of my favorite poems, that to me tells the entire purpose and goal of life:

Walt Whitman
O Me! O Life!
Poem lyrics of O Me! O Life! by Walt Whitman.
O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring;
Of the endless trains of the faithless--of cities fill'd with the foolish;
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light--of the objects mean--of the struggle ever renew'd;
Of the poor results of all--of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me;
Of the empty and useless years of the rest--with the rest me intertwined;
The question, O me! so sad, recurring--What good amid these, O me, O life?

Answer.

That you are here--that life exists, and identity;
That the powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.

:)

[WilliamMckeehan]

that is a good arguement by both of you i agree with you both :D

[scameter]

lol Thanks. :) :D :P

[deepakgang]

Isnt there a goal for what ever you do daily? When u go to school, when u play a game, when u brush ur teeth, when u tell a joke. Then how can u say all of our acts accumulated together which makes our life, has no goal?

[VossistArts]

Yeah , there doesnt have to be a goal to life. Its not necessarily so that all paths lead to the same end. Im not exactly sure why some people think that. Maybe its a way to try and make everyone conform to ones idea of what it all comes down to. Its not significant what you believe, know, and practice my friend, because youll find yourself standing with me and everyone else at the same place when its all said and done... yep.. no way around it. considering how wide open the possibilities look to me anyhow, the notion that we all funnel into the same point seems well, pretty preposterous. Have a goal, have no goal. whatever you do, whereever it gets you in your end, i wish you well.

[scameter]

I didn't say a goal for every individual action and act we take, i said for life entirely. Yes, there are small goals for our individual tasks like playing a game or going to school, but those goals can change, and not all goals are met entirely as they were predicted to. The results may be better, or worse depending on the individual opinion. But i meant a goal to life entirely. And by entirely i don't mean the accumulation of all of our tasks; i mean life purely, not with the human "tasks" we insert into it. Why can't living be enough of a purpose and a goal? A no-goal in a sense.

And that's pretty good Vos. Remember relativity of the individual, but otherwise that was good. :)

[deepakgang]

I think the discussion has diverted to the purpose of life which is pretty activin Religion board. So better we discuss how we can make our life happy :)

As ive told you in Hinduism, the earth is a learning ground. A place where souls come back after death to learn. The ultimate purpose of life is soul (consciousness) development. Death is another step in the process of soul development that continues until we achieve oneness with God.

[scameter]

But the purpose of life is, partially, happiness, thus the point of life must be addressed if this topic is to sustain.

[Wayfarer]

I don't think you can eliminate all suffering and still be human. Still be yourself.
However, you can eliminate unnecessary suffering and I think that is what Buddha was talking about. Unnecessary suffering would be any suffering caused by a misperception or misinterpretation of the situation. The failure to see the big view and the consequent wrong actions we perform as a result of the erroneous perception.
Unfortunately, the culture we find ourselves in and our own instincts conspire to create a perceptual web that it is difficult to be freed from. The web acts like a living organism, a mental virus that defends itself. In order to break free, you have to be willing to break with your culture and question your most basic assumptions about reality. Perhaps this is why Buddhists value the quality of independence in people.
At the core of this questioning of basic assumptions is the question: What is self? Discovering what your assumptions about the nature of self are and questioning those assumptions is the key to enlightenment.
By enlightenment, I do not mean transcending the world but rather becoming in harmony with the world by transcending ignorance.
One misperception and major source of suffering is the implicit perception that self is separate from the world. This leads to feelings of loneliness, alienation and fear. Unfortunately, changing this misperception is not as easy as simply coming to the intellectual conclusion that self and world are one. It requires meditation, study and awareness of those thoughts and activities that reinforce the cognitive misperception.

Will

[Thomas Knierim]

Wayfarer: One misperception and major source of suffering is the implicit perception that self is separate from the world.

Which is a logical conclusion derived from the assumption that there is an owner of consciousness (i.e. a subject). This assumption is so commonplace that it is built into the grammer of almost all languages of the world. It is deeply ingrained in human thought and language. A subject that exists beyond the phenomena cannot be detected, however, and since it is undetectable it exists only as a concept. Since it is a only concept, it has no means to interact with the phenomena, and therefore it is isolated/separated.

Cheers, Thomas

[deepakgang]

Yes. But since it is undetectable and only a concept, is it something that doesnt exist?

I mean when we die - isnt there something that goes out of the body that is undetectable? So is that only a concept.

[Thomas Knierim]

deepakgang: I mean when we die - isnt there something that goes out of the body that is undetectable?

Since it is undetectable one must ask the question: what goes out of the body? There is certainly nothing physical (measurable) that points to such an event at death. Hence, the idea of separation, i.e. something going out of the body must be erroneous itself, because separation from a material body implies a physical/material process.

Cheers, Thomas

[Wayfarer]

Rather than try to answer whether or not their is a soul, a seemingly impossible feat, you would be better served if you tried to figure out why you would ask the question to begin with.

Will

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by @--
Wayfarer: One misperception and major source of suffering is the implicit perception that self is separate from the world.

Thomas Knierim: Which is a logical conclusion derived from the assumption that there is an owner of consciousness (i.e. a subject). This assumption is so commonplace that it is built into the grammer of almost all languages of the world. It is deeply ingrained in human thought and language. A subject that exists beyond the phenomena cannot be detected, however, and since it is undetectable it exists only as a concept. Since it is a only concept, it has no means to interact with the phenomena, and therefore it is isolated/separated.
There are different levels; different flavors of perceived separateness. A flatworm does not have the same perception if separateness that we do and archaic humans do not have the same perception of separateness that we do. Even within our minds, we have differing flavors of perceptions of separateness. The emotion of love is a different perception of separateness than contemplating a mathematical formula.
Because humans use a symbolic, abstract language that is instantiated in the mind as a mental construct of self, we tend to perceive our self as a wholly autonomous and separate point of consciousness with absolutely definable attributes. But this is only a perception. We did quite well as a species before the advent of language and the resulting new perception of self.
I theorize that enlightenment involves the creaion of a competing perception of self that is created in the right brain. Eventually, through meditation etc. this new perception of self can become the dominant one; eclipsing the abstract self in the left brain (which is intimately connected to language).

[sahyo]

The emotion of love is a different perception of separateness*


as though loving only when perceptioning?


the resulting new perception of self.


"of"?


through meditation etc. this new perception of self*


if a "new perception of self", as though a preceiver,
then not meditating



:)

[sahyo]

you would be better served if you tried to figure out why you would ask the question to begin with.



try figuring out as though a "you"self which can ?

;)

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by @--
if a "new perception of self", as though a preceiver,
then not meditating
Perhaps I should have said: a new expression of self.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by @--
Wayfarer: One misperception and major source of suffering is the implicit perception that self is separate from the world.
Actually I was a little imprecise in my language here.
I should have said:
One misperception and major source of suffering is the implicit perception that self is indivisible, unitary and a wholly separate monad outside of time and space.
If you believe in a soul, you can add indestructable and extra-existential.

[deepakgang]

So what is happening when one dies. Is there some chemical process in our body that stops?
It is proven that energy cannot be destroyed. So if there was some flow of energy happening inside one, after death that energy must be converted to some other kind. TO what???

[Wayfarer]

An automobile engine converts the energy stored in gasoline to electrical and kinetic energy through combustion.
There are byproducts of this process: mainly heat and hydrocarbons. If you added up all the energy together: kinetic, electrical, heat etc. It would exactly equal the amount of energy in the gasoline that was used.
Energy conversion happens as a result of a process not as a result of the end of a process.
When you die, you are no longer coverting the chemical energy found in food into electrical, heat and kinetic energy.

[VossistArts]

Originally posted by @--
"but, then it says that the cessation of suffering is attainable; how?"

"The origin of suffering is attachment."

Maybe Find..... "the origin of attachment"

Find it, I dare you.

fu
I dont need to find where any one has said it. The origin of attachment, is birth into this world. suffering is precursor to attachment. attachment leads backs to suffering. There is the cycle, the way and the means to no end but to continue . Whats so bad about that? Really. Do you really want out? Not me. Not yet if ever.

[kskf]

You tried to use the term "energy" to denote something that is a permanent, non-destructable existence. The "form" of energy may change, according to your saying (or scientific belief), but the "essence" or "nature" of "energy" is what you believe to be the "unchangeable". According to Budhism, nothing is permanent, and everything is changeable. The existence of anything is "conditional" (i.e. dependent on something else). That something else is not matter, but the "rules" or "principles" that defines how karma works to bring about the existence. That "rule" or "principle" also dictates that existence of anything (matter or energy) is non-permanent but only temporary.

In science, you remember E=mc-squared? The "nature" or "essence" of "energy" is changeable, as is matter, since energy and matter are interchangeable. In theorectical physics, it is said that all matter is composed by strings, which are not matters but merely some sorts of vibrations. Vibration of what? Vibration of the strng which has vibration as its nature. That may lead to another topic and I may need to post to another thread.

When one dies, there is certainly some material and energy changes in the body. But there is no difference in living and death since the "changes" are always happening, although the "scale" or "magniture" are different. That difference is so significant that the "temporary existence" itself "perceives" that in one level where the changes occurs it is "alive" while in another level where the changes occurs it is "dead". In fact, "it" changes all the time and there is no life or death. In philosophy, you must have heard about the saying that changes in quantity lead to changes in quality. But quantity and quality are not discrete; they are just different points on a spectrum. The "difference in levels" of "changes" is just a perceived one. There is no such difference which is fixed, permanent and non-changeable.

"Suffering" is a "perceived" one, and it is real (i.e. in existence, though only temporarily). The existence of suffering is also "conditional" and so suffering may be extinguished. The conditional temporary existence "perceives" itself to be permanently in existence and to be the receipient of such suffering. Once that "perception" is elimiated (e.g. by eliminating the temporary existence and all future temporary existence), "nothing" will become the perceiver and therefore noone will perceive anything (including suffering).

In "energy", the second law of thermodynamic predicts that the ultimate world will be a state where everywhere is full of one single form of energy - heat, and there will then be no more conversion of energy into different form. That state may be similar to nirvana.

[sahyo]

The conditional temporary existence "perceives" itself to be permanently in existence and to be the receipient of such suffering. Once that "perception" is elimiated (e.g. by eliminating the temporary existence and all future temporary existence), "nothing" will become the perceiver and therefore noone will perceive anything (including suffering).



there isn't anything to eliminate nor anything to "become"

[sahyo]

Perhaps I should have said: a new expression of self.



what self ?

[kskf]

Originally posted by @--

QUOTE

The conditional temporary existence "perceives" itself to be permanently in existence and to be the receipient of such suffering. Once that "perception" is elimiated (e.g. by eliminating the temporary existence and all future temporary existence), "nothing" will become the perceiver and therefore noone will perceive anything (including suffering).


there isn't anything to eliminate nor anything to "become"


Playing with language again.

Nothing "really" will become a perciever as such "nothing" is not a permanent existence, but in the process of perception (though temporary) something is the doer which comes into existence. Recognising the fact that the preceiver is not "real" (i.e. not permanently in existence), nothing really "becomes" the perceiver, and the lack of a doer autmoatically leads to the non-existence of perception, and in turn the non-existence of suffering. Hence, the "pre-supposed" temporary existence of perceived suffering is thus "eliminated". If the term "elimination" implies a doer to actually eliminate something, then the "elimination" of suffering should be described as the destruction of the presupposition of the existence of suffering. Again, this saying may be further questioned as who presupposes anything and who destroys that presupposition.

Language is developed by conscious minds and thus a product of the being which has a sense of selfness (and uniqueness of every "external" items). The separation of internal and external, and the separation of "different" items in "external" world is already caused by the presupposition of permanent unchangeable existence. Using languages to describe the state where there is no permanent unchangeable existence is at best an approximation and can never be exact. That's why Buddha says nothing but simply smiles at the fallen flowers. Wittgenstein says: whatever one could not speak of, one must pass over in silence.

[sahyo]

it will make you their advocate
it will make you their voice



vgirl

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1114-globo.html

[sahyo]

though he explained, voiced without voice:

http://www.quangduc.com/BoTatQuangDuc/25photo.html

[Merlin]

Nice one Fu.

[scameter]

Well, you don't "have" to be anything, except, from their view, to evade karmic reincarnation, you have to die entirely, not just physically. To go so deep within yourself that everything becomes smaller and smaller until finally dissipating.

[scameter]

Or maybe what? Maybe I'm wrong, is that what you meant? There's no shame in being honest.

[scameter]

Well, how about that I got that from Osho's book "Zen"?

[scameter]

The beginning of the Zen book, since Zen is a mixture of the Indian, Chinese, and Japanese consciousness, describes the history of Zen and partially describes the Indian (Buddhist) and Japanese consciousness, and the Chinese balance. It's really interesting. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

Life is Suffering but maybe if you can make some one elses life just a little bit better its worth all the endless pain?

[scameter]

As am I psyche. And, I think that is the idea of the suffering/pleasure or happiness effect, or so it seems. :) The sort of, opposites offset each other idea.

[scameter]

Then what exactly is happiness, pleasure and bliss?

[WilliamMckeehan]

pleasure, happyness,bliss

well i dont know what they are but i sure do like um :thumbsup: :lol:

[scameter]

So?

[Mike27]

The whole point of the Buddahs teachings was to end suffering. He taught anyone who would listen.

Check out the 4 noble truths at http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm for the details

[Thomas Knierim]

...or if you want the short version, check out http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/ and click on The Four Noble Truth.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

The fourth Truth being the entirety of the Eightfold Path, also available on this site. :)

[steve933]

Desire and attachments cause us suffering, these cause us to be re-born. We cling to form. Everything is impermanent, we tend to attach to materialistic things, which are always impermanent, which cause us to suffer.

With Metta

[locomotive]

if you do one thing at a time you won't notice suffering.

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: ...the series were presented to an invited audience of buhddist teachers...so it is quite beautiful to see the dalai lama in his role as the ultimate budhhist scholar...and receive the transmision of this knowledge so crystaline clearly...

I also like the expositions of the Dalai Lama. He combines intellectual clarity with a no-nonsense approach that is rarely matched. Though there is one Tibetan writer that I found even more impressive: Sogyal Rinpoche, "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying". Did you read that one?

Cheers, Thomas

[Kether]

I always thought the end of suffering was letting go and being detached from desire, but reading the four truths again, this isn't what was said. It was said satiation is the answer to ending suffering. That is having so much of what we desire, we no longer desire it. I really like this idea better than trying to convince myself I don't want what I do want.
I agree absolutely. Desire is one of the very few things central to human nature. Overcoming it is futile. ‘Good’ is the satisfaction of desires.
i do not at all want a reincarnation
As far as I can tell, Buddhism sees itself as a means of escaping reincarnation – since reincarnation is life, and life is suffering. I do not believe in reincarnation, and do not hold to the pessimistic assertion that life is suffering – life can be suffering, and indeed is suffering for many people, but can be something else. I believe that assessing suffering on a metaphysical level is misguided; the reason and remedy for suffering are material.
It is tempting to create some grand metaphysical Answer to everyday problems and questions, and this is something many philosophers and prophets have done. But we are not the centre of the universe, and we are deluding ourselves when we pretend that human problems are created by mighty cosmic forces.

[MidnightSun]

Nice point.

Well i dont think the fraze was pesimistic, realistic perhaps?

[locomotive]

realistic. What is meant with that life is suffering might be not what you think of it. It might mean that everything that you do is based on stopping suffering wether it be eating, working or thinking about a solution for a question you got. interfering with your natural "flow" of solving problems results in the problem not beeing solved and from that the shit hits the fan.
Ofcourse all of this might mean nothing to you as this is a vague explanation.

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: Desire is one of the very few things central to human nature. Overcoming it is futile. ‘Good’ is the satisfaction of desires.

That's a good observation. It shows again that you are wise beyond your years. There is no point in wanting to oppose, repress, or abolish desires. In fact, this kind of thing is quite dangerous and leads to psychological imbalance, even disease.

However, there are many ways to deal with desire, and that's exactly the point that people keep missing. The idea that the only way to deal with a desire is to satisfy it, is just as misguided as the idea that desires need to be fought against.

Kether: I do not hold to the pessimistic assertion that life is suffering – life can be suffering, and indeed is suffering for many people, but can be something else.

Well, suffering is the common translation of the Pali word dukkha. Actually, there is no satisfactory English equivalent for this word. Think of it in three ways: it can mean suffering in the traditional sense, it can mean unsatisfactoriness, and it can mean being subject to experience, whether you like it or not.

Kether: ...the reason and remedy for suffering are material.

How so?

Kether: We are deluding ourselves when we pretend that human problems are created by mighty cosmic forces.

But that's exactly what they are. You can call them cosmic forces, or laws of nature. It doesn't matter. What matters is that these forces are beyond the understanding of the average person.

Cheers, Thomas

[locomotive]

I rather call it nature :D

[scameter]

Me too locomotive. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Yes, you can call it nature, but that is of course a trivialisation. It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that human problems are caused by human nature, or respectively human behaviour. Unfortunately, the investigation of human behaviour is tremendously complex. Behaviour is an expression of mental states, and therefore mind and consciousness are at the centre of this investigation.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

As well as it is a trivilization to believe that science is all-encompassing, or that Einstein's mind was.

And such an investigation require both the methods of science and spirituality, especially the means of Buddhism, to describe human behavior and psyche. :)

[Kether]

I see your point, Locomotive, and believe that it is a valid one. Desire can be equated with the avoidance of suffering, and thus most if not all of human behaviour can be said to be concerned with suffering.
Kether: We are deluding ourselves when we pretend that human problems are created by mighty cosmic forces.
Thomas: But that's exactly what they are. You can call them cosmic forces, or laws of nature. It doesn't matter. What matters is that these forces are beyond the understanding of the average person.
What I meant was that there are not simple, easy answers to our problems, and that understanding them can only come from a great deal of contemplation. I take back my assertion that the causes of suffering are 'material'. Most are psychological, but an understanding of them is still within the capabilities of science.
However, there are many ways to deal with desire, and that's exactly the point that people keep missing. The idea that the only way to deal with a desire is to satisfy it, is just as misguided as the idea that desires need to be fought against.
While 'good' comes from the satisfaction of desires, desires can conflict. The job of morality is therefore to prevent desires from conflicting - psychology, a science, can do this, and this is what I mean by 'scientific morality'.

[MidnightSun]

Bad (or evil) - suffeing caused by unsatisfied needs.

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: I take back my assertion that the causes of suffering are 'material'. Most are psychological, but an understanding of them is still within the capabilities of science.

Yes, the reasons for suffering are purely psychological and not material. Of course, there are material circumstances that affect us. For example, most human beings suffer when affected by physical pain, hunger, thirst, exhaustion, dehydration, and so on. In this case, the material circumstances are very immediate. I say "most people" because it is absolutely possible not to suffer psychologically from these conditions; it is a question of mind training. A strong mind is capable of dealing gracefully with even the most dire conditions.

Unfortunately, most of humanity does not have strong minds. Most people do in fact blame external conditions for their personal suffering all too easily, even if the suffering they experience is clearly a consequence of their own doing. The gambler who laments his poverty comes to mind. This is partly because it is convenient to blame one's misfortune on external causes, and partly because people actually succumb to the illusion that the quality of their experience is dependent on certain external conditions (...as in: "I need that car/house/wife/husband to be happy").

Is it within the capability of science to understand suffering, as you say?

Science can provide a limited disconnected understandig of the causes. Let's take the example of a Vietnam veteran. The "science" of psychology can partly explain the traumatic experiences, depression, and other conditions that the veteran soldier might suffer. The "science" of sociology can partly explain why his relationship with society is disfunctional. The "science" of history can partly explain why America enagaged in a military conflict with Vietnam. But of what use are these explanations? Has science ever been able to prevent wars or to avert terror?

The answer is no. Science cannot deal with the basic existential problems in an appropriate way. With "appropriate" I mean in a way that leads to their resolution. Let us demonstrate this by examples. Science knows everything about the fatal power of WOMD, yet WOMD are still being built. Science knows everything about lung cancer, yet people are still smoking. Science knows everything about the mechanism of escalation, yet violent escalations happen everyday somewhere in the world. Science can give an analytical understanding of some aspects of suffering, but it is far removed from an actual deep understanding of the whole complex of human suffering.

Kether: While 'good' comes from the satisfaction of desires, desires can conflict.

This is a very worldly conception of good. If we take the common desires of humanity to benchmark good, then pleasure must be good, power must be good, money must be good, and conflict is preprogrammed, as you already noted. This is based on the dual principle of (1) striving for pleasure, (2) fighting or avoiding competition. It is the strategical foundation of animal behaviour. All animals seek good by fulfilling desires and fleeing or eliminating threats. This motivation of behaviour is largely mechanical. Mental capabilities are employed only to serve the perpetuation of the body.

Unfortunately large parts of humanity function on the same level. This is to say that they are mainly driven by animal motives and their behaviour is largely controlled by the dual principle named above. Of course, human behaviour differs from animal behaviour in many respects, which is due to the enlarged cerebrum and the greatly enhanced thinking capabilities it affords. Thus, the instruments that humans may use to achieve rewards, as well as the nature of rewards itself, may become very abstract and complicated. But it is still all runs in animal mode.

Kether: The job of morality is therefore to prevent desires from conflicting -

Oh well, not very original, because this is exactly what humanity has been doing for thousands of years, and... pretty unsuccessfully, if I might add. The job of morality on the animal level is comparable to the job of traffic lights. It regulates conflicting desires, like traffic lights regulate drivers with conflicting motion paths. Although ethics and morality came a long way from the cavemen codex to the highly complicated laws and regulations of modern societies, it's still all the same. It regulates dumb animals.

Kether: psychology, a science, can do this, and this is what I mean by 'scientific morality'.

Psychology - scientific morality? - I think that needs some explanation.

Cheers, Thomas

[poulenc]

I think what the Buddha actually said was "Life is difficult." There's a slight--but important--difference between difficulty and suffering. "Suffering" sounds far too serious and permanent to have come out of the Buddha's mouth who, besides being always moderate in his speech, was a jolly kind of guy! And, as others have pointed out, he quickly went on to say that attachment is the reason for the difficulty. Give up attachment, goodbye, difficulty!

[scameter]

But difficulty could be described in many different ways. I believe he specifically meant suffering; he wasn't always serious no, but he was the Buddha, and as is said in Zen, when he spoke he gave us occasional hints at Buddha-ist truth, in a sense.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

suffering is caused by desire

desire is caused by the ego

ego is cuased by ignorece of the fact that there is no-self

The 8 fold path is bulit in a way that will avoid suffering
The 8 fold path is the middle way, it is balanced
By following the eightfold path you will see the non-selfhood and oneness of the universe
thus suffering will end.

[seeker]

you wish to know how to rid yourself of suffering by attaining the knowledge of the origin by discussing it......but discussion alone does nothing you must read some of the good texts of buddhism to see what the buddha says about this and how to practice......because practice is the only thing that leads to insight of the origin of suffering and the impermanant,selfless nature of the world.....if youd like suggested readings id say read the sattipathana sutta(not sure if thats totally correct spelling lol) and maybe the anapassati sutta and or other buddhist books just get more of an idea of things.....as well as taking up buddhist meditation practices such as the mindfullness practice described in the sattipathana sutta and as for your other thought that reaching the end of suffering makes and if you are worried that maybe if or when you attain some insight that you or other become uncompassionate that is not the buddhist way which is why a steady practice of loving kindness is needed too....anywho i think i have said all i can the rest is up to the you

good luck and best wishes in the journey to come kieran

[namtso]

I think what the Buddha actually said was "Life is difficult." There's a slight--but important--difference between difficulty and suffering. "Suffering" sounds far too serious and permanent to have come out of the Buddha's mouth who, besides being always moderate in his speech, was a jolly kind of guy! And, as others have pointed out, he quickly went on to say that attachment is the reason for the difficulty. Give up attachment, goodbye, difficulty!

poulenc, I think yours is one of the best and clearest explanations so far. It's like the line from Hamlet - "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (Hamlet Act II, Scene II)

Robina Courtin has some great teachings free for download at http://www.lamrim.com/venrobina/index.html. One of her talks is specifically titled "Liberation from Suffering". Robina Courtin is a Buddhist Nun in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. She is very good at giving extremely clear explanations for Buddhist concepts.

Here's a good story (there's other, similar variations) that deals with suffering as a result of afflictive emotions, which are tied very closely to attachment -
A samurai walked up to a Buddhist Monk who was sitting by a river and demanded to know, "What is the difference between heaven and hell?" The Monk looked at the samurai and said derisively, "You desire to know the difference between heaven and Hell? You are unworthy of such knowledge that a pig possesses, much less the knowledge of the secret of the differences between heaven and Hell." The Samurai, in anger, lifted his sword to strike the Monk down, while the monk, unmoving, calmly said, "That is Hell." The Samurai dropped the sword to the ground and tears sprang to his eyes -- that this Monk should risk his life to teach the Samurai such a lesson. The monk quietly said, "And that is Heaven."

[namtso]

Scameter, i don't think you got the message of my last post, i said go and READ!!! I am no
Buddha, i suffer, i will not bring u the truth. Buddhaism says the 8 fold path is the answer to
suffering
ming

Buddha Dharma Sangha - the Three Jewels of Buddhism. When a student asks a Buddhist
teacher a question, the act of answering the question can also serve to re-vitalize the
teaching in the mind of the teacher. The teacher can also discover new insights in the
process. Also, the student, by asking the question in their own unique way, can be a catalyst
for that new insight. There's also a lot of different ways to learn. One is the Sangha.
When I think of the Sangha I immediately think of a group of Tibetan monks out in a courtyard
doing their debates. One monk sitting on the ground crosslegged, the other monk throwing out
questions and slapping his hands together demanding the answer. If you haven't seen video of
this event, you should check it out. It's really pretty funny. But it definitely serves a very
important function. When you have a guy standing in front of you giving you a challenge
to answer a question, with a group of onlookers, you can't hardly fake your way through
the answer. It pushes you to really understand the lessons. My point is that the Sangha
is also very important and plays a very important role in helping a person learn
the teaching. This bulletin board is a Sangha of sorts, yes? Also someone can read a book
but not be sure the book is valid. Getting feedback and confirmation from others is a good
resource I think. It is for me.

[namtso]

To all - I've just joined this bulletin board and I'm coming in to this thread a little late. My
apologies for wanting to post so many replies in a row. This is absolutely the last one ...
until the next one, ha ha.


I always thought the end of suffering was letting go and being detached from desire, but
reading the four truths again, this isn't what was said. It was said satiation is the answer to
ending suffering. That is having so much of what we desire, we no longer desire it. I really like
this idea better than trying to convince myself I don't want what I do want.
Of course I can reason away some desires, such as wanting a peice of cake until I think of
unwanted wieght gain, and then the desire for cake is replace by a desire to reduce my weight. So I conclude, it is not just having more than enough to satiate a desire, but also the ability to substitute one desire for another that eliminates suffering.
CSwriter1

I don't think satiation is the message, is it? I pretty much stick to Tibetan Buddhism
which is essentially Mahayana Buddhism. Other types of Buddhism may imply that
you need to satiate your desires but I haven't seen that yet. Where did you read that
satiation is the answer to ending suffering? I guess I can see the point that if you
are to do anything to excess, like overeating, you eventually discover that is also a
source of suffering. But I don't need to go and become a heroin addict to discover
that it's bad for me. I'm sure heroin feels great in the beginning but I also have
learned from others that it is terribly addictive and by it's very nature, it's something
not to be messed with. I have to concede your point to a degree though. Ven. Robina Courtin
likes to use an analogy of chocolate cake. She tells the story about how you just love
this chocolate cake and you can't seem to get enough. You just devour the first piece but
that's not enough. So you have a second and a third until you are so stuffed that you don't
want to see another piece of cake. You are actually repulsed by it. But we don't need to go
through life satiating every desire until we are sick of it, do we? Kind of risky that. I
think you are sort of talking about addiction here and that's kind of like desire times 1,000.
And replacing one addiction with another is not healthy either. Excess is the problem regardless
of what the desire is, for example cake or heroin. Breathing too heavily makes one pass out,
no breathing also does. Wisdom also comes into play. Swallowing any amount of sodium cyanide
is a bad thing, eh? Yes, I know I'm going off on a tangent, I'll end here before I get completely
out of control. Not a pretty sight.

[Mystic]

Life is a continious cycle where there is no beggining or end.
Its very crucial to understand oneness with our environment.
Everything that we see is a direct or indirect reflections of us. Every moment of our lives we create causes through our thoughts and actions and expereince immediate or latent effects.

Shakyamuni Buddha preached many sutras, however it was The Lotus Sutra which had a path for each of us to achieve enlightenment right here and now. We all have the potential to achieve buddhahood while living within the society with all the desires and wants.

By chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo we are invoking our buddhahood and acquuring the wisdom to deal with are up's and down.

[W[oIa]nderingMind]

Since this topic is about "suffering" I think it is important to understand that suffering is a not so good - to put it polite - translation of the plai word Dukkha:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha

Dukkha ( according to grammatical tradition from Sanskrit dus-kha "uneasy", but according to Monier-Williams more likely a Prakritized form of dus-stha "unsteady, disquieted") is a central concept in Buddhism, the word roughly corresponding to a number of terms in English including sorrow, suffering, affliction, pain, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and aversion. The word frustration is probably a better synonym than suffering. The term is probably derived from duḥstha, "standing badly," "unsteady," "uneasy."

Although dukkha is often translated as "suffering", it has a deeper philosophical meaning. It also contains in addition deeper ideas such as "imperfection", "impermanence", "emptiness" and "insubstantiality". "Suffering" is too narrow a translation and it is best to leave dukkha untranslated.

[redraven]

scameter: the root of suffering is desire (attachment is more philosophical, but less interesting) and the path to the cessation of suffering is the eightfold path. The eightfold path is well explained on the bigview website, no need to do it here, and is the way of Mahayana and Therevedan Buddhists, and to some degree, but differently, to Zen Buddhists (who are usually considered Mahayana, but I kind of disagree.)

Buddhism is kind of hard to learn, but the stuff at the bigview website isn't long and is a good way to start.

The reason the Gods are envious is that their good karma is so great that they can't attain the bodhi. They are in heaven being served by other beings, and their pleasure is the pride before a fall. Most of them don't reincarnate as humans.

Buddha said that the person is like a turtle in the sea, coming up for air only occasionally, and coming up for air represents a human incarnation. When he comes up for air, he must be around a golden yoke and slip his neck through it, and there is only one yoke in all of the great sea. That's how rare a chance to practice the dharma is. Feel blessed that you have the chance.

Dukkha also means "bloated." In the world of Sanskrit, a dead body defiles a person, and the connotation of this word is "bloated like a dead body." If you were Shinto you would understand what a deep insult that is. Dukkha is actually a curse word, I think. It means that your mind is not only a diseased thing, it is disease itself, and that you should cast it off. "Mind" here means something like "ego."