The Wheel of Suffering?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Glad you answered! :smiley:

I believe that standards are implemented by a mutual agreement. Once that agreement is only one-sided, standards start slipping and we lose the quality we were aspiring to. That seems to have happened. We struggled up to a standard and lost it again quicker than we could imagine because we were unable to recognise the gain as a gain and every step further as a loss. The political manipulation that went on after WWII has led to the situation we are in now.

I think I agree with what you say to a large degree, which does lead to what Anon said about accepting violence as a given and, consequently, becoming to some degree indifferent to it, whilst at the same time personally avoiding violence. As a pacifist, I have to accept that the consquence of my behaviour means that I have to become equanimous towards violence and suffering, whilst showing compassion with those suffering – which is a position that has a lot of problems attached.

Do you think that the Buddhist eightfold path is something for many people, or just for a few, like we have spoken about Christianity?

Good to hear from you!

22

Bob, for clarification I’m not talking about indifference at all. Think of it this way - we could just accept, as sheep, that there are wolves in our midst who will sometimes attack. I’m not exactly a pacifist, so this is not quite my view (maybe it should be - though I think there are some issues to consider). But wouldn’t this level of acceptance of violence actually reduce the proliferation of violence in our world overall? Trying to convince wolves to be peaceful just makes them more likely to attack, I would think - like trying to calm a hornet by sticking your hand in its nest. Wolves will occasionally attack. I don’t think there’s any avoiding that. WE are wolves. Imagine a society of mosquitoes trying to convince us to be less violent. A swarm! Kind of makes things worse…

23

Hey, Bob,

I question whether we have ever had a moment in history where “standards” didn’t include violence as a solution to conflict resolution. Paraded under the guise of “defense”, violence has been socially accepted by every culture of which I am aware. I’d like to believe that humanity is intelligent enough to move past violence as a preferred way to resolve conflict, but I see nothing to suggest that is possible. There just too many political and economic “rewards” for the use of violence. As I suggested in earlier posts, the growing population problems suggest even more violence, not less.

It would be wonderful if the eightfold path could become a larger movement. Looking inwardly helps govern how we act outwardly. But I don’t see that, or any other less violent movement possible. As smears pointed out, learning a new paradigm requires the luxury of leisure time to be schooled as well as thousands of teachers of that new paradigm. Too much of the world enjoys neither.

At best, we practice what we preach as individuals with the help of a few who agree with us. I can’t see any other course of action that is pragmatically possible. Rejecting violence isn’t “accepting” violence. There is nothing to keep us from working toward reducing violence where ever possible, but only as long as we understand that violence will always be with us. It makes the cloister or enclave look good, doesn’t it?

24

Hello Bob

— Does it not make the standards somehow lacking?
O- their very existence attest to their limit. They exist in tension with nature, levels of selfishness and pride. Not so much what they lack but what we lack. We are not naturally bloodthirsty but we are not natural egalitarians.

— Or is the consequence of upholding such standards completely linked to martyrdom, at least during episodes of oppression?
O- Well, you have to understand that both the martyr and the martyrer follow moral ideals.

— Must we accept the fact that human beings will continually live in conflict and that some of the best will continually be the victims of violence?
O- No and yes. No because we should not accept our tragedy with folded arms. Morally I don’t but analytically…
Is morality not a reaction to our natural state? To our natural propensity to seek our own interests above those of others precisely because they are others? I think so. But while I understand the propensity of our species I believe that a better world can be achieved, not through standards but through compassion, through identification. The problem is not the breakdown of standards but the erection or preservation of differentiations. It is a human propensity to create categories and value judgments added to such categories. To see the others on par with ourselves is an achievement which we all should always strive for and so we should never accept what is all too natural, aggression, as what is right. It is simply what we face and always will face. This is not an acceptance of it but an assertion of reality, what we face and shall always face when we rise from mere existence into an examined life.

— If this is true, is it surprising when the moral standards of whatever kind are accompanied by attempts to make them absolute and divine, with the threat of inescapable consequences if we fail? Is there an alternative to martyrdom and absolutes such as God?

Questions over questions …

Yes there is. We live today in a more connected world. Social media continues to do today what the airplane began a century ago. There are pockets that cling to the past glory but I think that media is making myth-making, propaganda harder to swallow and so these guardians are having to reckon with what used to be an easily controlled herd.
Take the case in India. To avoid isolation this govt is now trying to address a backward mentality. As we move forward I think that shame will civilize these cultures even more, even our own.

25

I like this question.

I think that society is not worse, and that our attention is focused on what is lacking. As we improve, our awareness of problems is likely to become more keen.

An increased sensitivity, awareness, attention, to what is lacking reflects our moral obligation to try to fix these problems.

Our morals are getting better

I just spun the wheel of suffering and won the lottery

26

The bad genes are a minority. They are a small part of the code. The majority of the code is good. Cannibalism is a good example of bad genes. It exists in some species. The species turn against each-other. Not all species are like this, but sadly some humans were. I consider it bad luck. I think the majority of species don’t go parasitic or cannibalistic on each-other. Eugenics is the solution. People hate it though.

27

What I find amazing is that we as humans have experienced something we have never experienced before. Massive population densities. In order to sustain this population density — morality and wellbeing must (without a doubt) be improving. The mind actually looks upon this amazing achievement in awe and not in frustration.

Population figures for the top 20 cities in the world… amazing!

This produces a highly stressful environment as we are being pushed to our absolute limits, but it is an awesome example of how humans are evolving for the better. Despite insanely large populations, civil order and quality of life are damn good (even for the worst of the worst).

I consider 20 million people in one city and think… OMG! Why aren’t we slaughtering each other in a Battle Royal !

The Utopia of the past does not exist… a peaceful existence, living ‘with’ nature, an abundant food supply, no diseases, no wars, plentiful water… sentimentality rather than reality.

28

To build on what I said before, I think what you wrote above is the wrong thing to give acceptance to.

Given the situation with the Jekyll and Hyde aroused/unaroused states, I think that violence, and our personal capacity for it, is to a degree hidden from us in our daily lives. Well, the lives of the majority anyway, at any given time. Simply because in normal life, violence is so rare. When’s the last time you were in a fight…? Where you were actually an agressor, rather than a victim…? I think I was about 14 - ooh, only 30 years ago. We hardly ever become familliar with ourselves, familliar with our actions, under violent conditions.

And since I also believe we naturally use estimations of our own (false) limits in our predictions of the actions of others, the capacity for violence on the mass-scale is also sometimes hidden from those who instigate it. The commander of the soldiers he sends into to commit acts of purposeful violence - coldly, calculatingly, rationally - is, at least initially, unaware how far his forces will go if not curbed. “Oh - my men would never do that, because I’d never do that…” kinda thinking.

I’ve read histories of the rape of Nanking for example. I cannot believe that the Japanese forces, to a man, were all monsters - all going into Nanking with the express intention of raping and murdering all those people. The situation - the impact of mob-pyschology, hysteria, stress - pushed everyone into the abyss. The law acknowledges this innate dichotomy in those who commit acts spontaneously in a state of “passion” or premeditatively, in “cold blood”.

We just don’t like to talk about it, because we’d never do that. :-k

We call people psychos, or mentally disturbed, when maybe they are not. We spin that the actions of a few bad apples instigated an atrocity - like abu ghraib - when in fact all apples rot in bad conditions.

To defeat the cycles of violence we must not accept violence as a natural part of human existence - and as such inevitable - but as a natural reaction by humans to some facets of human existance - latent in all.

Then of course do our damnedest to stop these situations arising.

29

Just because man is climbing the mountain, doesn’t mean that he has not, in his rush, wondered toward the edge of an obscured cliff.
More “forward” does not always mean more “progress”.

As soon as he found a way to possibly create a black-hole, he insisted upon creating one so as to find out if he was right. :astonished: :confused:

30

Correct, not always - - - always depends upon the person.

31

Thanks for you contributions, I appreciate all of what people have written and it is good to hear from some old acquaintances again. You have all written intelligent comments to the OP and it started me thinking – which in my case is always the point of posting. Thanks Tab for pointing out that we have some potential for causing suffering that we like to be oblivious about, but which is active in young years and perhaps latent but still a potential later on. A bout of anger can reveal our potential – especially if we have the physical capacity and people around us feel weaker – and suddenly we have people scared of us.

What has occurred to me with regard to the “wheel of suffering” is that much of what we are talking about is the situation in which people are often pressed – even if it was initially voluntary. This being pressed is something we experience in everyday life too, whether professionally or under group pressure even in a private situation. Curiously, much of the coercion we experience is caused indirectly by the assumption that we have to do certain things or it is correct, right, and modern or whatever reason we have – regardless of an objective study of our effectiveness.

Much of what Religion (in my mind) initially shows us is how to be effective as a complete organism, as well as part of a collective (perhaps I’ll go into that another time). This has become especially clear to me by cultivating mindfulness and I discovered that the “Slow-Movement” has a similar approach by discovering the appropriate speed at which we should do things with a holistic approach to health and culture. Discovering that our pragmatic effectiveness doesn’t necessarily impair our cultural development but is complementary to it – if we are truly holistic in our approach – could lead people to also discover that the wasteful ways we lead our lives points to the need for change, even in a very egocentrical way.

The alternative – which we experience regularly – is not so much “evil” as stupid (I owe this insight to the Dalai Lama). The more flow life has, the more satisfaction we gain. The more flow I prevent, the greater the danger of suffering there is. The more mindfulness we gain, the more we can become equanimous to the little and larger things we cling to and realise how much they weigh us down – and realise that this has often been the cause of militancy.

This said, there will always be the struggle, I appreciate that, but I would suggest that there are also viable alternatives. The trouble seems to be the excess baggage such alternatives have gained with time. How can we find a path with less … ?

32

Hi Bob,

Other than attempting to be what we say we are, I know no other answer to be effective. We can’t help but influence others by the way we are, and this seems to be the only answer that works in a clamorous confusing world. After all the words, reams and reams of words, it is our example that influences the world. You mention the Dalai Lama and perhaps that is the role model for what you seek. It isn’t only his words, it is how all his actions are consistent with his words. On a much smaller scale, can we not exemplify his leadership? You and I are fortunate. We have both the education and the luxury of time. We live in societies where just grasping for the needs of daily survival isn’t our only preocupation. For us, we can ask the questions and find our personal answers. Much, if not most, of the world cannot afford the luxury of a decent education nor the time to explore the questions, let alone find suitable benign answers. Coercion and violence are the wrong answer, but they are the easy short-term answer. It has always been this way and it is very likely to continue. The only solution is education and a society where time to ponder the questions is possible.

There are times when I look at the predictions of a Second Coming as a heartfelt desire for a cataclysmic change in the paradigms so negative and destructive in human behavior. Sadly, even if there were a Second Coming, I doubt that we would pay any attention. You’ve seen this before, but…
“The Way is broad and level, but people delight in tortuous paths.”

33

Bob,

“Curiously, much of the coercion we experience is caused indirectly by the assumption that we have to do certain things or it is correct, right, and modern or whatever reason we have – regardless of an objective study of our effectiveness.”

I think you’re on exactly the right track here!

34

Tent,
That dearth is a fact does not make it a necessity. According to “A Course in Miracles”, the concept of dearth is the prime cause of man’s inhumanity to man. Dearth is the idea of haves that they will somehow be diminished by helping the have nots. It’s the idea that there is not enough of anything to go around.
Distribution is eclipsed by the idea of dearth. Instead of having drones kill people; they could be used to help people. It’s a matter of priorities.

35

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, and education and finding time are the aspects of Religion which are central teachings, albeit that the education then was different to the education today (but the education of tomorrow will probably also differ) but it is time which concerns me most. With a nod to Anon, yes I think that effectiveness needs to be increased by slowing down and stopping the habit of compressing tasks into less and less time. We have to find the appropriate time - especially time for meditation, contemplation and reflection - which was, as far as I am concerned, the time spent in prayer.

The rubbish that pious people have told me about prayer amounts to the garbage one believes about meditation before practicing - a true case of the blind leading the blind (and the point of Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees) - but the west has stumbled into this position and Churches and Temples are full of well-meaning, naive non-knowers. I was thinking about Jon Kabat-Zinn’s statement about the knowledge of smell: It isn’t the ability to describe, but the recognition of taste that makes a connoisseur (knower). Recognising the ineffable things is the task of a religious knower, but there are multitudes who follow the facade of non-knowers who speak a lot of nice words.

If Religion could break from this pseudo-education and teach people what they need to know about using time effectively, people would also recognise enlightenment for what it is and find themselves happier.

36

I’ve mentioned any number of times that “knowing” is the problem and that understanding is what we’re all after. But what I’ve said has either been ignored or misunderstood. Only those who have managed to go beyond knowing grasp the meaning. But here we are, scribbling more words to toss on the piles of words…

Slowing down… But you know just as does anon, that to say slow down brings the accusations of “navel gazer”, la la land people, slackers, and the rest of the put downs of a world busy driving themselves insane. This is why I believe that the only way forward (or backward?) is personal. Our words mean little or nothing. It is how we act out our understanding that is the example of what is possible. For those who “slow down” enough to see that there is something there that they may have missed, then there is community. But that community will always be small and their words will be whispers in the cacaphony.

Where is that Second Coming when you need one? :wink:

37

Later. :sunglasses:

38

Yeah, I know (do I?) it is a little frustrating at times … :blush:

The thing with “knowing” is that I feel we are too forthcoming with what we believe, and fail to check whether we really know. It is a second step to to identify the things we find reliant in our mind and a third step to give it language. Unfortunately we jump to the third step in belief and forget that even language is misleading. The “knower” I mean is the person who has enough experience to know what is reliant and recognizes these things as they come, but not someone who immediately attempts to give it language. The words we are garbling are more external looking in, rather than words of the soul, which come out of the experience.

The accusation of being “navel gazers” will progress until the “doers” have done enough to kill us all.

39

Yeah guys, but words give things form, clarity - they are the initial step towards proofing a theory - not being able to relate something coherently is a sign of, to me at least, something half-baked, unreliable and probably based in mistaking something random for something not.

There are the things I know - repeatable things that correspond to reality.
There are the things I do not know which break down into three groups - things that I don’t know, but others - whom I trust - do. Things that I do not know, and no-one else does either, but are almost certainly not unknowable, just are hard. And finally the things that are impossible to know, God for instance, though these things are mainly of the class the is covered by the old saw of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

etc. oh, and you can substitute “consistantly the same for everyone” for “reality” if you like.

40

OK. Agreed that making “sense” of experience gives rise to language and/or any symbol system you would care to call language. But the sticky wicket is when we hit the slippery slope of seeing the symbol as reality - which you know full well creates much of what we would label suffering. The problem with all symbols is that they are never a complete description of of an experience, only of a narrow specific perspective. How many times have we watched a tight narrow definition turned into some vague generalized universal proclamation? I don’t hve any problem with “knowing”. I know a whole bunch of things… but, always with the understanding that such knowing is temporary and provisional. Those things that correspond repeatedly to my current reality is knowing -as long as I understand that nothing stays the same and that I might have to alter my view of what I think I know from time to time… Like every 15 minutes or so. :wink: