slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (07/09/85)
First, I would like to thank Paul Dolber for posting an interesting
article and opening a new discussion in this newsgroup.
Now, let me give a little more information on suffering from the Buddhist
point of view. Being the mixed-up person I am, I would like to
add Hindu and Taoist points of view also, but think I should keep
this particular article limited.
To say that Buddhism follows the statement "...the universe... is
subject to iron laws but not to any purpose" in relation to the
problem of suffering is inaccurate, and very limited. Suffering
is the root of Buddhism.
Buddhist thought is based on the Four Noble Truths which go like
this:
1. Suffering is present in all of life. There is sickness,
pain, and death. We suffer when we get what we do not want,
and when we do not get what we do want.
2. Suffering is caused by desire, and by the clinging that this
desire produces. For instance, we desire life, cling to it,
and so suffer when we die.
3. If we can overcome the desire and clinging, we will not suffer.
4. The way to overcome desire is by following the Noble Eightfold
Path, sometimes called the Middle Way.
Everyone probably would agree with the first statement. Many with the
second and third. Only us Buddhists vote for all 4.
Since Buddhists believe that suffering is our own creation, the problem
of whether an outside agency, i.e. a god or gods, can cause this suffering
and still be all-knowing and good does not arise.
Note that Buddha never said that a god or gods do not exist.
A very good illustration of this is what he said when one of his
followers asked him a series of questions--"Is the universe finite
or infinite? What are the gods like? What happens when we die?" and
so on. His reply went like this: (not a quote from the writings, just
a paraphrase) "You are like a man who is shot with a poison arrow.
He is taken to the doctor, who is about to pull out the arrow so that
the poison cannot further enter his bloodstream. But the man refuses
to have the arrow removed until he knows all about how the arrow came
to be in him. He wants to know the name of the man who shot him, his
caste, his hometown, his mother's maiden name, and what he had for
breakfast. The man will die before he knows these things. Likewise,
you will die before you know the answers to those questions. But you do
know how to remove the arrow of suffering."
This story and its moral have never stopped Buddhists from evolving all
sorts of cosmologies, and using lots of dieties--mostly as meditation aids.
I have one such, myself.
As to your question. (And now we are not into strict Buddhist thinking,
but my own feelings.) I do not think that someone can reconcile an
omnipotent, omniscient, merciful god with the suffering that exists
in the world. Something has to go. This whole question seems to be
the biggest hole in Christianity. Personally, I discard the merciful
first. If there is a god ruling things, it is obvious that she gets
just as many kicks from being evil as from being good. Then I discard
the omnipotent. The world seems to work just fine on its own, thank
you. The omniscient I tend to keep. To me, the world is conscious.
Hope this is of help. Be happy.
--
Sue Brezden
Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
AT&T Information Systems
11900 North Pecos
Westminster, Co. 80234
(303)538-3829
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
-Warren Zevon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/10/85)
> To say that Buddhism follows the statement "...the universe... is > subject to iron laws but not to any purpose" in relation to the > problem of suffering is inaccurate, and very limited. Suffering > is the root of Buddhism. Buddhist thought is based on the Four Noble Truths > which go like this: > > 1. Suffering is present in all of life. There is sickness, > pain, and death. We suffer when we get what we do not want, > and when we do not get what we do want. > 2. Suffering is caused by desire, and by the clinging that this > desire produces. For instance, we desire life, cling to it, > and so suffer when we die. > 3. If we can overcome the desire and clinging, we will not suffer. > 4. The way to overcome desire is by following the Noble Eightfold > Path, sometimes called the Middle Way. > > Everyone probably would agree with the first statement. Many with the > second and third. Only us Buddhists vote for all 4. And that's always been one of my problems with the Buddhist philosophy. Why should I seek to remove *all* suffering from my life? Aren't some of our goals attained and don't we obtain satisfaction from that? And isn't the satisfaction all the greater when contrasted with occasions of failure and suffering? Don't success and satisfaction only have real meaning in contrast to instances of non-success and non-satisfaction? If the way to remove all suffering from my life is to remove all desire (and I agree that the tenet itself is probably quite true!), I'll stick with a little suffering so that I can retain a bit of desire and success and satisfaction. For me, life without desire, without chances and attempts at reaching goals, would make me less than human, less than a living being at all. > Since Buddhists believe that suffering is our own creation, the problem > of whether an outside agency, i.e. a god or gods, can cause this suffering > and still be all-knowing and good does not arise. Good point. > Note that Buddha never said that a god or gods do not exist. > A very good illustration of this is what he said when one of his > followers asked him a series of questions--"Is the universe finite > or infinite? What are the gods like? What happens when we die?" and > so on. His reply went like this: (not a quote from the writings, just > a paraphrase) "You are like a man who is shot with a poison arrow. > He is taken to the doctor, who is about to pull out the arrow so that > the poison cannot further enter his bloodstream. But the man refuses > to have the arrow removed until he knows all about how the arrow came > to be in him. He wants to know the name of the man who shot him, his > caste, his hometown, his mother's maiden name, and what he had for > breakfast. The man will die before he knows these things. Likewise, > you will die before you know the answers to those questions. But you do > know how to remove the arrow of suffering." > This story and its moral have never stopped Buddhists from evolving all > sorts of cosmologies, and using lots of dieties--mostly as meditation aids. > I have one such, myself. I think I'd choose to have the arrow removed at the time, but that wouldn't stop me from going back to the same glade and risking getting shot with a similar arrow again, if the goal was worth attaining.
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (07/10/85)
Me: >> "You are like a man who is shot with a poison arrow. >> He is taken to the doctor, who is about to pull out the arrow so that >> the poison cannot further enter his bloodstream. But the man refuses >> to have the arrow removed until he knows all about how the arrow came >> to be in him. He wants to know the name of the man who shot him, his >> caste, his hometown, his mother's maiden name, and what he had for >> breakfast. The man will die before he knows these things. Likewise, >> you will die before you know the answers to those questions. But you do >> know how to remove the arrow of suffering." Rich Rosen: > >I think I'd choose to have the arrow removed at the time, but that wouldn't >stop me from going back to the same glade and risking getting shot with a >similar arrow again, if the goal was worth attaining. > I agree. And that brings up an interesting point. The main difference between the Theraveda and Mahayana schools of Buddhism is that the Theraveda school emphasizes each person removing the arrow and not looking back. In the Mahayana, one stops short of removal (or returns after enlightenment) and vows to help all other beings to achieve the same thing before going on. In that case, the goal is certainly worth it. The analogy given is that of a walled garden. Three men climb the wall and look in. They see the most beautiful garden possible. Two climb in, but the third runs back to help everyone else find the garden. That third one is a Bodhisatva. (Are you a Bodhisatva, Rich?) That's one reason I usually favor Mahayana. Also, it's always seemed to me that Mahayana Buddhists have more fun :-). Theraveda is probably more "pure"--closer to the original faith--but it can be rather stark and sometimes self-indulgent, at least to me. And, yes, Rich, I also tend to want both happiness and suffering. I avoid a lot of things which lead to enlightenment. Guess I feel about my spiritual life a lot like St. Augustine felt about chastity: "Lord, grant me chastity, but not yet." :-) -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Send lawyers, guns, and money... -Warren Zevon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~