Wikipedia will tell you that it is pain and unpleasantness. But that is too shallow. That isn’t true suffering. To me, suffering is when thoughts start causing physical pain. When the prospect of death seems like the only escape. But sometimes not even death can stop suffering.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. What is the nature, the purpose of suffering. And then, it hit me. Maybe the lack of a purpose is the problem? It is easier to take pain when we know when it will end, or when we know that it is a pain of healing. But when it is a destructive pain, or suffering without a purpose, then it is true suffering. Pain for the sake of pain, where nothing is gained and everything is lost. Is that the nature of suffering? I don’t know. I can’t say that I experienced true suffering on that level. I don’t think anyone has. Or at least they haven’t lived long enough to tell the tale.
Is being stuck upside down in a cave until you slowly die, knowing nobody will come to rescue you true suffering? Is being a victim of a terrible crime and not being able to ever get justice for it true suffering? Or is it something simpler?
I was never good with words. So please don’t blame me if I can’t fully define it. That is exactly why I ask this question. I invite you all to discuss the essence and the nature of suffering with me. I wish to understand.
DISCLAIMER: This is a philosophical question. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’m not asking the Buddha about the nature of suffering. I’m asking you, the people. What is it to you?
I also think it’s the thing the Buddha said. It was very well stated and made a lot of sense. You should go read about it.
Attachment.
You mean as a concept or as in file? I assume a concept, since there are no file attachments or links here.
Attachment is definitely a cause of suffering, but it is not the essence of it. There can be suffering without attachment, and attachment without suffering.
How can there be suffering without attachment?
Physical pain is not caused by attachment. It could be caused, for example, by electricity, or perhaps a sharp object. No attachment needed.
And no, the physical body is not a form of attachment. It is a part of you just like the mind is. You literally cannot exist without some form of a body.
And what about suffering due to desease? Like having a very bad fever dream. Where’s the attachment there?
Do you get my perspective?
Physical pain is a signal in your brain telling you to stay away from electricity, sharp objects, and fire etc. It also tells you when something important for survival is absent like food leading to hunger headaches.
So basically all physical pain is caused by you (the brain) being attached to survival.
Physical pain has a huge emotional component. That’s why we can train pain tolerance. Placebos and holding a loved one is sometimes as effective as morphine in reducing pain.
So all in all suffering is due to attachment. If you let go of the attachment by training your mind you can end suffering. That’s what Buddhism is all about.
Are we mixing philosophy and biology? Because this way we can explain all emotional states we experience. I do not disagree with this perspective, but I do not believe it is the whole truth. If we let go of all attachments in this perspective, we let go of life itself. And that is not a valid solution in my view. Since there are other ways to avoid suffering, I do not see attachment as the main cause of it. Attachment can actually alleviate suffering in some cases.
I am not sure I mixed in much philosophy. I gave a scientific explanation because most people prefer it.
We don’t let go of life but our attachment to it. You train to watch it happen and end like a spectator. Then you won’t feel a rush when good things happen which inevitably leads to a low (suffering) when they end. You will also accept the bad things beyond control without suffering.
You will be in a steady state of happiness and peace.
Like?
You can’t avoid losing everything you call yours—including your loved ones. You can’t avoid sickness and death.
Alright. Let me adress all your points. As well as I am able to.
I asked a philosophical question, expecting a philosophical answer. My general question was “what is suffering?” Your answer was basically “a reaction to negative stimuli.”. Yes. Obviously it is a reaction with its reason and cause rooted in biology. That is not what I was asking.
Is watching your own life like a spectator not letting go of life itself? I never said suicide. I said letting go of attachment to life. Acceptance of life is not the same as letting go of one’s attachment to it. You still want to live, don’t you? That means you are attached to life. That attachment is needed for life itself to exist. And what is happines anyway? Is it a lack of suffering? Because in my perspective, you cannot achieve happines without accepting life with all the good and the bad it brings. It’s a balancing act. The solution is not to stop playing, but to enjoy the game for what it is. I do not see that and “letting go of attachment” as the same thing.
And what are those coveted ways of avoiding suffering? Imagine a scenario in which from birth you are pumped full of drugs that make you happy, and hooked up to a simulation that makes you experience a perfect life. Do you suffer in that scenario? And I’m not saying THAT is the solution ot all suffering, it’s just the first idea off the top of my head.
“You can’t avoid losing everything you call yours—including your loved ones. You can’t avoid sickness and death.” No, you can’t. But is that really the essence and cause of suffering? Once you accept that you will lose everything you gain, there is no loss. It’s a zero-sum game. Therefore, you don’t suffer. Not in the same way as someone who doesn’t accept this reality. Pain is unavoidable. Wether it be physical, mental or emotional. But pain by itself is not “suffering”. It’s just pain.
Why are you asking?
Because I want to hear the answer. Why do people ask questions? Why do people seek second opinions from doctors? I’m asking for the exact same reason.