annoyance,anger,disappointment and pain

I would suspect your view is personally generated. I've known very happy people in my life, who were content to survey the very little they had, and find good in it--and for them, sufficient unto the day was the good thereof. Personally, i think the notion of a necessary struggle to place value on what we attain has a rather Protestant flavor, one which is unpleasant to me . . .

I am with Sentana on this one. I think the 'need' for pain is silly. That is like saying that in order to really see you need to be blind.

I see just fine thanks.

BTW: Sentana - Nice sig. I live in Texas right now - and I would like to oppologize to the World. I am trying to stop the madness.

TTF

it is always a pleasant task, to welcome 'unity'!

i agree with the essence of your point, in that if there is no experiencial 'range' with which to judge, it is meaningless to assign a quality to a perception.

However, the nature of the natural environment in which we find ourselves, seconds after (and even before) birth, is replete with examples of the less than pleasant, less than comfortable; with which we can hone our sensitivities; without seeking out hardship to demonstrate the excellence of enjoyment!

[Polarity is obvious, wallowing in the negative side of it is perversion!]

I don't think happiness is "caused" by anything. It isn't something that someone else can give you, or take away from you.

I don't think a person can be truly happy until they reach a content place in their life where they are able to say "enough", able to stop wanting.

I'm not saying that finding this place makes one immune to heartbreak though. Still, it is a matter of looking inward, to what you have risked and what you have learned - instead of looking at the unfairness of it all as something being done to you.

Experiencing emotional pain doesn't teach us about love, but about our own resilience.

Suffering is. We are born, become injured and ill. We grow old and feeble, and we die sometimes painful deaths. We hunger and thirst, sweat and shiver in inclement weather. We crave security and sanctuary in a world filled with risks and dangers. We long for love and the respect of others like ourselves, but we spend most of our little lives alone and apart.

Happiness is that transient state where suffering becomes secondary. Our youth slips away almost unnoticed. We try to hold on to happiness, but it vanishes like mist on a hot summers morning. Those we love leave us in one way or another. Our health deteriorates, and our hungers return. Our fortress falls and our tribe is dispersed.

We pursue happiness and a better tomorrow, but they flee before us. Tomorrow never comes, though its shadow is ever present in our eyes. We look on beauty and desire it for ourselves. We pass mansions and imagine them ours. We pause from our labor to dream of silken pavilions and leisure. Even when our hopes are fulfilled, we find that they do not live up to expectations. Every achievement is replaced by our desire for another. When we plant a tree, we know that we will not taste its mature fruit.

This is the First Nobel Truth.

All sentient being know that Truth, though we all try to deny it, to escape it. We spend our lives trying to escape suffering. Whether rich or poor; man, master or slave we all alike suffer and desire happiness. Even those who sleep in a bed of roses must endure the thorns.

If we knew no more than the first Nobel Truth, the best we might hope for is that there be a life after death where suffering no longer reigned.

Yet we are most fortunate. Siddhartha, a Prince, renounced his sheltered life, his beautiful wife and son to confront the problem of suffering. He vowed not to return to the world until he found a means of cause of suffering, and conquered it. siddhartha tried many techniques, followed many Masters, and became a hermit in the deep forest. At last, tired but still resolute he sat. Sitting, he resolved not to move again until he either found success or death. For many days nothing happened, but Siddhartha remained still, but for his breath. His body weakened, but his Will became stronger. During the long night he had visions. As the sun began to rise, a young woman walked by the sitting man carrying a jug of milk on her head. Taking pity, she offered him a drink. Siddhartha had long since ceased to drink or eat any food that came from animals, but in his extremity and on the cusp of Enlightenment he drank. Siddhartha sat under the Bo Tree, but it was The Awakened One, The Buddha who rose up. We are most fortunate in the birth of the Siddharta and that his quest to conquer suffering succeded.

He went into a Deer Park maintained by a rich local merchant, but was reviled for abandoning the search for higher truths. He preached there the Deer Park Sermon and many saw the Truth. The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path that have ever since been the foundation of Buddhism. This is not the only path to Enlightenment and the conquest of suffering, but it is probably the most systematic and widely successful means devised by our species. You can transcend suffering by knowing its cause, and by following those precepts that follow from it. We are most fortunate to be born to hear the Teachings that can lead to the liberation from suffering.

I'm with Asherman on this one. Pain and suffering, from internal and external sources, are a natural part of life, and to be expected. How we choose to overcome and/or deal with these strong feelings is entirely up to us. Do we do it in a positive way, i.e. learning from the experience, or do we slip down a negative path such as self-destruction? I think pain can be a very enlightening thing, and can give one perspective, but I'm not so sure I would endorse it as a lyfestyle.

Asherman:

1) It is great to read your posts. I am not a Buddhist - but I am greatful to have your posts to 'enlighten' me. (get it ... okay so it was lame. )

2) Do you think that the noble truth of suffering is simply the way we look at the experience. It seems that the difference between 'suffering' in a traffic jam listening to a c.d. and 'enjoying' a song in our driveway is our disposition.

Both times we are sitting and listening to music - it is what we bring to the experience that makes us suffer. It is the enlightenment that we are tortured only when we attempt to control what is out of our control - however - we are liberated when we seek to only control that which we have control over - our thoughts and our wants.

I know this is more Epictetus than Siddhartha - but I wanted your take on this.

TF

You needn't worry, no one here will blame you . . . and i applaud your personal sanity . . .

Thinker,

As we used to say, "I'm hip to Epicetus, and Marcus Aurelius". Stoicism has many important insights that we can all profit from. The difference is that Stoics resign themselves to circumstance, whereas a Buddhist seeks to transcend the suffering intendant upon consciousness.

In your example, I have to admit suffering through the ultra-decibles of obscene rap. This is the same music that many young people find so pleasurable it is worth sacrificing their hearing for. This is a pretty low order of suffering compared to that of having one's leg broken to please a Master. I can, being already deaf, live well-enough in a world of Rap, but prefer not to experience famine. As long as we live in this world of perception, we will suffer as a natural consequence that arises from apparent differences. Out of difference is born time, space, and, to sentient beings, value. We are continually weighing the past and future against the moment. Distances have meaning only when there is more than one thing in existence. When we are confronted with two of anything, our natural inclination is to judge one as better, or worse than the other. Putting ourselves at the center of the Universe, that which appeals to us is "good" and that which we find distasteful is "bad". Only when we are able to rise above our petty points of view, and consider the larger nature of suffering is there progress. Progress toward a state of being where suffering is either non-existent, or mitigated to it's lowest possible level.

"Stoicism has many important insights that we can all profit from. The difference is that Stoics resign themselves to circumstance, whereas a Buddhist seeks to transcend the suffering intendant upon consciousness."

Very well put.

Thanks,

TTF