Religion, SF, and Other Speculative Fictions.


Mind on Fire random header image
← →

On Suffering.

Posted by John on July 24th, 2007 at 6:15 am · 7 Comments

There wisdom in the following quote from the Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard, but I’m a bit disturbed by it as well:

We want the world to allow the unconditional fulfillment of all our aspirations.
And since this does not happen, we fall prey to suffering.
Our search for happiness is more often founded on our illusions than on reality.
It is pointless to try to shape the world to fit our desires;
We must transform our minds.

There are two basic responses to humanity’s impossible aspirations to overcome death and conquer nature: one is religion, which provides (from my perspective) illusions that make these seem attainable. The other is to simply accept that we will end, and that the universe is much, much bigger than we will ever be, and to be at peace with that. I’m sure that I’m twisting Ricard’s meaning a bit here, since most Buddhists believe that they have their own answers to the question of mortality.

I part from the wisdom in this quote on the issues of suffering and the ‘pointlessness’ of shaping the world. My dissatisfaction with the state of the world and my aspirations to change it are sources of continual suffering for me, but I embrace that pain. And when those dear to me die, I don’t have the false consolation of an afterlife to ease my anguish. I accept that too.

I agree that incredible suffering is caused by unrealistic, unfulfillable expectations (exacerbated by religious world views), and like many Buddhists, I’ve responded by lowering my expectations. But I refuse to completely eliminate them. I desire that this world will some day be free of war and disease and pain. I wish for me and my loved ones to all live long and happy lives. I’m bound to be frustrated in these hopes, but I refuse to let go of them. I’m holding onto my humanity.

Tags: Buddhism

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jonathan Blake // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:19 am

    I too am rankled by the assertion that we should remove all hope of a better world in order to end our suffering. The decision to continue in suffering in order that others may suffer less reminds me of a Bodhisattva who chooses to remain a part of the world despite being an awakened being.

    Is it truly possible to end one’s own suffering while still being fully motivated to help others?

  • 2 Mark // Jul 24, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    When we transform our minds, we begin to transform the world!

  • 3 Eric Robeck // Jul 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    I admire the Buddhist principle of detachment, though at present I’m not very disciplined or detached. My deconversion from Mormonism is still very fresh and I want to gradually ease into a spiritual practice such as Buddhism.

    It seems to me that most of the spiritual masters took detachment to its limits, including human relationships. I’m thinking of the suffering Gandhi’s sexual abstinence caused his wife.

    To me, the joys and passions of human love are more than worth the inevitable suffering. True change can only be effected by those in the human sphere, not those who have detached themselves from it.

  • 4 Miko // Jul 24, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    It is one thing to say, “I cannot change a person’s actions but I can change my response to those actions,” which is a good way of getting through family gatherings; but quite another to say, “I cannot change anything, therefore I should just be happy with what is”. There is definitely virtue in acceptance, but so is there virtue in righteous anger (especially when it provokes action). Abiding by “all things in moderation (even moderation)”, we can accept the Buddhist acknowledgment of the virtue of acceptance but at the same time attempt to affect change. Maybe those who come after us will not need to accept as much as we did.

  • 5 Elaine Frei // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    I’ve been thinking about the quote you posted, John, since I read it this morning.

    It bothered me when I read it, and I couldn’t quite figure out why at first. And then I realized that it reminds me much too much of the idea of some Christians (and likely Jews and Muslims as well, as monotheists) that everything that happens is God’s will, which is inscrutable, and one must simply accept it with a smile and gratitude.

    Yeah, there are things one can’t change, things that one has to simply learn to live with. But the principle promoted by that outlook also encourages people to let others…individuals and especially institutions…to walk all over them while they just bow their heads and thank them for allowing them to be a step-stool.

    Perhaps that is not what Matthieu Ricard meant by that statement, but in the real world that is often what such an idea ends up promoting.

    Ah, well. What do I know? I figured out a long time ago that I wasn’t cut out to be a Buddhist.

  • 6 mel // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    I once told a combined LDS Priesthood meeting that I suspect the source of suffering around death and loss is ignorance of things as they truly are … it dropped like a lead balloon.

    I still believe it though … that if we could only learn the truth about death and remove all our ignorant conceptions we might just be at peace.

  • 7 Miko // Jul 25, 2007 at 6:28 am

    Elaine points out the patristic problems with the conception of god-as-father: if he’s your dad, he knows what’s good for you & you never are faced with the necessity of growing up and fending for yourself.

Leave a Comment