Thread: The Way to End Suffering

Originally Posted by Mario92

But what a shallow, short-term goal. That's no fun.

Why not? I am responsible for no one's happiness and contentment but my own.

Originally Posted by juroara

How can you expect to inspire other people to rise above their own personal suffering if you first haven't? No one likes a hypocrite! You have to walk the talk. You want suffering to end, you have to start with yourself, there's no other way around it!

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

I prefer to strike at the root. Also, a modified version of stoicism works wonders. By deadening the bits that feel negative emotions, I've effectively cut off about 90% of negative experiences. Note, however, that there is a remaining 10%. I defy you to find me an average Joe off the streets who is capable of removing 100% of his suffering, regardless of the situation.

So you want to me to judge other people, and based on how they look, or how they live, decide whether or not they have transcended their own personal suffering? That's not something I want to do. But I will say the first step to transcending your own personal suffering is to give up this idea of there being an average Joe

Why do you need to compare yourself up against anything or anyone?

Originally Posted by juroara

So you want to me to judge other people, and based on how they look, or how they live, decide whether or not they have transcended their own personal suffering? That's not something I want to do. But I will say the first step to transcending your own personal suffering is to give up this idea of there being an average Joe

Why do you need to compare yourself up against anything or anyone?

All I want you to do is select a random individual off the streets that is, for all intents and purposes, "average." Someone who doesn't have severe mental disorders, incredible amounts or lack of amounts of money, etc. Then I want you to show that this person is capable of eliminating 100% of his suffering. In other words, achieving inner perfection. My claim is that this is impossible, so long as we are human.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Sorry I missed this, I was preoccupied with other things.

On a personal level, what you are saying is very valid, but I think the OP was talking about suffering on a world wide scale (with talk of people doing bad things to other people.) The dualism of good and evil doesn't mean that if you love a woman, you have to also hate her. You can love your woman and hate your neighbor, or you can love both or hate both. What matters is that biologically the capacity for both exists in every single human being, even Jesus and even the Buddha. So a person who is willing to admit to themselves that they have a dark side and they have the potential to do evil things, has the ability to control their actions and emotions much more than a person who denies that they could ever be evil. The more a person represses this part of their nature, the more easily and uncontrollably it is elicited from the environment. So in a world were the vast majority of people adhere to the natural mindset of "we" are good and "they" are evil, world peace is not a plausible goal.

Yeah a lot of this is true, but that's only one of the reasons why world peace is not a plausible goal. If we could then see that there is no good and evil, world peace is even more unrealistic. Just one of the factors that contributes to peace in the first place, within oneself.

Originally Posted by Mario92

But what a shallow, short-term goal. That's no fun.

You really couldn't be any more ironic!

Originally Posted by Mario92

All I want you to do is select a random individual off the streets that is, for all intents and purposes, "average." Someone who doesn't have severe mental disorders, incredible amounts or lack of amounts of money, etc. Then I want you to show that this person is capable of eliminating 100% of his suffering. In other words, achieving inner perfection. My claim is that this is impossible, so long as we are human.

You still have barely any ground to be 'claiming' this. I've already provided you with reasons why it is possible. I didn't say it would be easy.

You still have barely any ground to be 'claiming' this. I've already provided you with reasons why it is possible. I didn't say it would be easy.

You've given me reasons. What I lack now is any evidence of this actually happening.

You claim perfection is possible. A lifetime absolutely, 100% free of any negativity, including the boredom that comes as a result of only positive experiences. A lifetime completely free of regret, empathy for those in need, physical pain (hahah, good luck), discomfort, awkwardness, unobtainable desires, work you don't fully enjoy, etc etc etc. Now, perhaps you could explain to me how this is possible.

The elimination of suffering can only happen one individual at a time. This is the motivation for evolution. We should only breed with happy people. If, at some time, the level of true happiness and joy exceeds the weight of suffering perhaps humanity as a whole will have enough awareness to be happy.

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences his self, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separate from the rest-- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion, to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in it’s beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself part of the liberation and foundation for inner security."

--Albert Einstein

Buddhism is all about the elimination of suffering. An average guy decided he would die or find the way to end suffering and thus became the Buddha. He was not the only son of God. he didn't do miracles. He wasn't an occultist or even a theist. He didn't teach to obey an angry God. He didn't teach to go to heaven. He was a guy who wanted to end suffering here on Earth, in each individual, forever. Unfortunately we can only be responsible for our own happiness or suffering, we cannot end it for other people. The best the Buddha could do was to teach the way that he found.

But basically he has a simple system. It begins with the 4 noble truths:
1. Suffering and existence go hand in hand.
2. It is craving and aversion that cause suffering.
3. There is a way to end your own suffering by not relying on your craving, attachments, expectations, and aversion.
4. The way to achieve this is called "The eightfold path".

And then you have the 8-fold path which basically means to follow your conscience and to meditate rightly.

Having freeing yourself from suffering you have a choice of not existing anymore, or staying around to help others get free of suffering.



Looking towards history to see where we can possibly evolve to is dangerous. First of all, the whole of history is so short. We just barely emerged from the trees. Our civilizations are just primitive experiments similar to playing Jenga. Yes, our history is made up of wars. But just because we are animals doesn't mean we are incapable of being mindful and cultivating our awareness so we can make decisions with consciousness instead of cannibalistic reactionary reactions. Yes, evolution is still happening, and we have the ability to evolve consciously for the first time in the history of the Earth.

Just to say that humans caused so much suffering throughout history doesn't mean that we can't change. In fact, if we don't change we will become obsolete.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The elimination of suffering can only happen one individual at a time. This is the motivation for evolution. We should only breed with happy people. If, at some time, the level of true happiness and joy exceeds the weight of suffering perhaps humanity as a whole will have enough awareness to be happy.



Buddhism is all about the elimination of suffering. An average guy decided he would die or find the way to end suffering and thus became the Buddha. He was not the only son of God. he didn't do miracles. He wasn't an occultist or even a theist. He didn't teach to obey an angry God. He didn't teach to go to heaven. He was a guy who wanted to end suffering here on Earth, in each individual, forever. Unfortunately we can only be responsible for our own happiness or suffering, we cannot end it for other people. The best the Buddha could do was to teach the way that he found.

But basically he has a simple system. It begins with the 4 noble truths:
1. Suffering and existence go hand in hand.
2. It is craving and aversion that cause suffering.
3. There is a way to end your own suffering by not relying on your craving, attachments, expectations, and aversion.
4. The way to achieve this is called "The eightfold path".

And then you have the 8-fold path which basically means to follow your conscience and to meditate rightly.

Having freeing yourself from suffering you have a choice of not existing anymore, or staying around to help others get free of suffering.



Looking towards history to see where we can possibly evolve to is dangerous. First of all, the whole of history is so short. We just barely emerged from the trees. Our civilizations are just primitive experiments similar to playing Jenga. Yes, our history is made up of wars. But just because we are animals doesn't mean we are incapable of being mindful and cultivating our awareness so we can make decisions with consciousness instead of cannibalistic reactionary reactions. Yes, evolution is still happening, and we have the ability to evolve consciously for the first time in the history of the Earth.

Just to say that humans caused so much suffering throughout history doesn't mean that we can't change. In fact, if we don't change we will become obsolete.

I'm not sure about that, though, Dannon. Achieving the ideal existance in Buddihism seems pretty bleak. I do it to some extent. When I wake up and can sleep for a few extra minutes, I conciously enjoy laying in bed. When I am working, I conciously enjoy the work. That is true for just about every type of action I take part in. But for me, it is happiness that is the goal. Not a peripheral outcome of eliminating suffering. There is happiness and there is suffering and there is the nothing. Honestly, being emotionally neutral is scarier to me than any of the alternatives.

The language of Buddhism is very negative. The Buddha felt it safer to teach in negative terms because he saw what happened to Hinduism. The absence of suffering reveals our true nature which is.... the Buddha preferred to leave this nameless and unconceptual. But you could call it Bliss.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You've given me reasons. What I lack now is any evidence of this actually happening.

You claim perfection is possible. A lifetime absolutely, 100% free of any negativity, including the boredom that comes as a result of only positive experiences. A lifetime completely free of regret, empathy for those in need, physical pain (hahah, good luck), discomfort, awkwardness, unobtainable desires, work you don't fully enjoy, etc etc etc. Now, perhaps you could explain to me how this is possible.

We're speaking for the scope of the human suffering, all of which can be transcended. It may be harder to conceptualize when you state "100% free", because suffering is ultimately a relative subjective quality and isn't really quantifiable beyond the scope of calling it 'human suffering' alone, so let's just stick with that for now.

All of the things you state are not suffering itself, but conditions for suffering. These conditions can be part of life without actual experiential suffering on a deeper level. The point is not to argue for the human condition itself, because it is possible to still exist in the human realm and be free of much of the suffering that the vicissitudes of life would otherwise induce. It is only a matter of consciousness and orientation.

As I stated before, the same local conditions 'for suffering', may give different responses and experiences to each individuals who have different orientations/outlooks to life. When you state the typical vicissitudes of human life as an argument against complete bliss or perfection, you are really only limiting the scope of the argument to individuals who are unwilling to transcend their conditions mentally/spiritually, and thus, inevitably subjecting themselves to those conditions. Again, this only applies to people who look for the solutions (peace) where they're not (human conditions), or on the flip-side: those who are altogether unwilling to change and discipline their mind. An argument for an 'average' person is an invalid argument against a 'peaceful person.'

Originally Posted by really

All of the things you state are not suffering itself, but conditions for suffering. These conditions can be part of life without actual experiential suffering on a deeper level. The point is not to argue for the human condition itself, because it is possible to still exist in the human realm and be free of much of the suffering that the vicissitudes of life would otherwise induce. It is only a matter of consciousness and orientation.

You can minimize it. You can't eliminate it in entirety. Many a great person has tried and failed. Suffering is part of the human experience. You've got to accept it and move on, not look for any possible way out of even the smallest inconvenience. The simple truth of the matter is that we are never going to wipe out suffering in entirety. It will always be present in this moral realm. You can cover it up, hide it, mitigate it, and delude yourself all you want. It will still be there.

As I stated before, the same local conditions 'for suffering', may give different responses and experiences to each individuals who have different orientations/outlooks to life. When you state the typical vicissitudes of human life as an argument against complete bliss or perfection, you are really only limiting the scope of the argument to individuals who are unwilling to transcend their conditions mentally/spiritually, and thus, inevitably subjecting themselves to those conditions. Again, this only applies to people who look for the solutions (peace) where they're not (human conditions), or on the flip-side: those who are altogether unwilling to change and discipline their mind. An argument for an 'average' person is an invalid argument against a 'peaceful person.'

There are limits as to what humans can consciously do. We are only very slightly in direct control of our minds. This "transcendence" would essentially require a complete rewiring of the very things that make us human...something well beyond our capabilities. So transcend all you like. You're still human. You can devote your entire life to an attempt to eliminate suffering, rather than just taking the good times with the bad. You still bleed like the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You can minimize it. You can't eliminate it in entirety. Many a great person has tried and failed. Suffering is part of the human experience. You've got to accept it and move on, not look for any possible way out of even the smallest inconvenience. The simple truth of the matter is that we are never going to wipe out suffering in entirety. It will always be present in this moral realm. You can cover it up, hide it, mitigate it, and delude yourself all you want. It will still be there.

What then of people who have eliminated suffering? They don't count? I don't think you understand. Suffering is part of the human condition, yes. Therefore, those who reach bliss transcend the human condition, spiritually, until physical death. How they can be a human of this world and in a state of bliss is another topic altogether.

There are limits as to what humans can consciously do. We are only very slightly in direct control of our minds. This "transcendence" would essentially require a complete rewiring of the very things that make us human...something well beyond our capabilities. So transcend all you like. You're still human. You can devote your entire life to an attempt to eliminate suffering, rather than just taking the good times with the bad. You still bleed like the rest of us.

You are describing the human condition, and the common beliefs of human perception. Yes, this is all inevitable in the world we all live in. However, 'heaven' is still a possibility - it is possible in a spiritual context, not a human condition. You won't suddenly be walking along and find heaven down some alley way. Heaven is an inner state.

Originally Posted by really

What then of people who have eliminated suffering? They don't count? I don't think you understand. Suffering is part of the human condition, yes. Therefore, those who reach bliss transcend the human condition, spiritually, until physical death. How they can be a human of this world and in a state of bliss is another topic altogether.

Do show me these individuals. Please keep in mind that embellished ancient fairy tales don't count.

You are describing the human condition, and the common beliefs of human perception. Yes, this is all inevitable in the world we all live in. However, 'heaven' is still a possibility - it is possible in a spiritual context, not a human condition. You won't suddenly be walking along and find heaven down some alley way. Heaven is an inner state.

Heaven is possible, sure. Provided it does, in fact, exist. I hold that if it exists, we won't find it in our human lifetimes. That is all I am arguing.

You can't see/feel heaven in people, if you first didn't find it in yourself. Give up, Mario.

You people are arguing the impossible. I'll believe it when I see it. But seriously, what's so bad about just living out life? Why invest all this effort into some sort of hypothetical spiritual enlightenment? If you believe it exists, then you likely also believe in some version of the afterlife. You've got 75 years to be human. Take the good with the bad and have fun. As spockman said, happiness is the goal, not the end of suffering. So reduce it as best you can, sure, but don't strive for some unobtainable perfection.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You people are arguing the impossible. I'll believe it when I see it. But seriously, what's so bad about just living out life?........Take the good with the bad and have fun.

First you say that happiness is boring making it IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate suffering, because even being happy is suffering. (nice circular argument there)

Next you suggest that to eliminate suffering is to deny living life. . . . . . A conclusion you made all entirely and independently on your own having nothing to do with what any of us said here.

Thankfully, it ain't true! To eliminate suffering means to ENJOY LIFE ! And all those little (superficial) things that make people angry and pissy at each other, it's no big deal. Hey things happen, laugh, get on with your day and be happy. The very same people who teach that YOU CAN eliminate suffering also teach, among other concepts: have a sense of humor, and don't take yourself or life too seriously! (something teenagers do too often "OH NO MY BOYFRIEND DUMPED ME I SHOULD COMMIT SUICIDE")

Anyways....uhh......I don't think you understand spirituality in context to suffering.

Why invest all this effort into some sort of hypothetical spiritual enlightenment?

You make eliminating suffering sound like some END GOAL. Something you obtain at death, like entering a magical place called heaven. That's not true. It's a day to day, moment to moment journey. Where everyday you have the potential to be happier than yesterday. Your time won't be wasted, but fulfilling and satisfying. Enlightenment doesn't end, it's not a goal, or a level. It's never ending nonstop personal evolution.

We were enlightened when we first discovered fire. And we were even more enlightened when we discovered music to dance around the fire with!

PS. A person is considered enlightened once they have reached a point of no-return

Originally Posted by juroara

First you say that happiness is boring making it IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate suffering, because even being happy is suffering. (nice circular argument there)

Try all you like, you'll never maintain the same level of happiness all throughout life. As you repeat something that makes you happy, it will make you steadily less happy every time you do it. Think of it like a joke or a good meal, or a thrill ride. Eventually, you'll know exactly what to expect and the activity will cease to be amusing. You'll have to find something else to make you happy, and that too will make you steadily less happy.

Now imagine you free your life from pain entirely. Now you have nothing to compare your happiness to other than past events that have made you happy. Boredom will inevitably set in, and you'll find that events that used to make you happy now only bore you, and as such, must likewise be eliminated from your life. Repeat ad infinitum.

Next you suggest that to eliminate suffering is to deny living life. . . . . . A conclusion you made all entirely and independently on your own having nothing to do with what any of us said here.

Life IS suffering. We suffer because we are alive. If you strive endlessly to eliminate all suffering, you will fail until you die. If you concentrate all your effort on ridding yourself of unpleasantness, how do you expect to enjoy life? What happens when you are confronted with suffering you can't eliminate? How do you cope with that?

Thankfully, it ain't true! To eliminate suffering means to ENJOY LIFE ! And all those little (superficial) things that make people angry and pissy at each other, it's no big deal. Hey things happen, laugh, get on with your day and be happy. The very same people who teach that YOU CAN eliminate suffering also teach, among other concepts: have a sense of humor, and don't take yourself or life too seriously! (something teenagers do too often "OH NO MY BOYFRIEND DUMPED ME I SHOULD COMMIT SUICIDE")

This is exactly what I am proposing. Suck it the hell up and move on with life. Instead of trying to avoid anything that will cause suffering, man up and deal with it. Cope with it, make fun of it, accept it. You live, you bleed, you die. Have fun while you can.

You make eliminating suffering sound like some END GOAL. Something you obtain at death, like entering a magical place called heaven. That's not true. It's a day to day, moment to moment journey. Where everyday you have the potential to be happier than yesterday. Your time won't be wasted, but fulfilling and satisfying. Enlightenment doesn't end, it's not a goal, or a level. It's never ending nonstop personal evolution.

You can only increase your happiness so much. There's a finite limit to the amount of dopamine you can have in your brain at one time.

PS. A person is considered enlightened once they have reached a point of no-return

Meaning what?

Sorry Mario but you don't understand, or are not willing to understand. We're speaking of something that requires a paradigm shift from ordinary orientation and thinking; it is radical. It's not about 'having fun', or always having 'the best' experience. You are judging the concept by your own familiarity (and experience perhaps), but frankly it doesn't matter. You might be surprised to know that happiness increases as one has less wants and demands?

Real, blissful, uninterrupted happiness is so because it is independent from all conditions; because it stems from within, and that's why it lasts. Typical human experiences of happiness is conditional and fleeting, because it is perceived to be external and is often projected on specific objects. Every problem you can possibly present, therefore, is only a matter of the dependency on the external world (and any conceivable object; even one's own thoughts) for happiness, because the less dependent and attached one is, the more opportunity to abide in the natural state of happiness and truth from within.

Originally Posted by really

Sorry Mario but you don't understand, or are not willing to understand. We're speaking of something that requires a paradigm shift from ordinary orientation and thinking; it is radical. It's not about 'having fun', or always having 'the best' experience. You are judging the concept by your own familiarity (and experience perhaps), but frankly it doesn't matter. You might be surprised to know that happiness increases as one has less wants and demands?

Real, blissful, uninterrupted happiness is so because it is independent from all conditions; because it stems from within, and that's why it lasts. Typical human experiences of happiness is conditional and fleeting, because it is perceived to be external and is often projected on specific objects. Every problem you can possibly present, therefore, is only a matter of the dependency on the external world (and any conceivable object; even one's own thoughts) for happiness, because the less dependent and attached one is, the more opportunity to abide in the natural state of happiness and truth from within.

If the typical human condition is a state of fleeting happiness and sadness, and if each one of our emotions, (including pain and sadness,) has evolved to fill a specific function, and desires and want for material things is a natural progression of society, (social ethic also serving it's evolutionary purpose,) wouldn't a state of eternal contentment be unnatural, even if it is desirable?

...not if eternal contentment is a natural result of the human condition that you have described. Suffering invariably leads to the desire to end suffering. It is only a matter of when. The desire to end suffering invariably leads to the cessation of suffering, it is only a matter of when.

To Mario; Amusement is not happiness. The absence of pain is not happiness. The absence of adversity is not happiness. The lack of amusement is not the lack of happiness. The presence of pain is not the lack of happiness. The presence of adversity is not the lack of happiness.

Originally Posted by spockman

If the typical human condition is a state of fleeting happiness and sadness, and if each one of our emotions, (including pain and sadness,) has evolved to fill a specific function, and desires and want for material things is a natural progression of society, (social ethic also serving it's evolutionary purpose,) wouldn't a state of eternal contentment be unnatural, even if it is desirable?

This also seems to be falling into the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is "natural" does not mean that that is the way that things "ought to be."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This also seems to be falling into the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is "natural" does not mean that that is the way that things "ought to be."

It is not falling into that fallacy at all. I never claimed that the full spectrum of emotion including greed and such is preferable. All I ever argued was whether or not it makes contentment natural. Notice I made no bias implying 'that makes absolute contentment bad.'

Originally Posted by spockman

It is not falling into that fallacy at all. I never claimed that the full spectrum of emotion including greed and such is preferable. All I ever argued was whether or not it makes contentment natural. Notice I made no bias implying 'that makes absolute contentment bad.'

I must have misread it then. I missed the very last sentence of the post that you were replying to and, out of context, it looked like that's what you were implying. In that case, you're absolutely right. "Natural selection is not in the business of creating happy animals." Forget where I read that.

The teachings of the Buddha are very clear that even pleasure is suffering, for the same reasons that Mario so eloquently and insightfully described. Pleasure is not happiness. Happiness is the freedom from suffering. Happiness is our true nature when our emotions are not caught on any hooks or snags like attachment to pleasure or avoiding pain. Yes, having a lover is very pleasurable, but attachment to a lover creates suffering and jealousy.

People need to understand that happiness is not pleasure. The degree to which a person is aware and 'lucid' is the degree that he/she is free from suffering. It is, after all, only a dream.