Pictures of Mo
Offline So I was doing some research on the Quaran and I found that it actually does not say "you can't draw Muhammad". Apparently only third party teachings are the reason why Muslims are so upset. These third party teachings are sort of like the precepts in Buddhism or what they call the "8 Fold Path". These opinions are modified by each sect and used differently through out the world. Some believe one set, the other believers follow another set.
So what or why is it that so many Muslims say "The Quaran said so..."?
I find this to be a good example of how Christians claim "The bible said so..." but when you exam the bible for the actual quote given it doesn't exist.
So this is an eye opener to me. When people tell me they are Muslim I assumed that they were practicing and were well versed in the Quaran. However after this little bit of research it has shown me that Muslims don't know their holy teachings as well as they seem to profess. It also shows me that the followers of ISIS and other radical views are just opinions. They aren't following actual teachings of Muhammad. They are following third party teachings and most likely are fighting for greedy purposes.
Greedy purposes like land, power, money and fulfillment of their own egotistical desires.
(edit)
Which brings me to an amazing revelation about Muslims.
They say that you aren't allowed to depict Muhammad because it might lead to worshiping of of an idol. Yet as all of us know, if you say, "Hey I met this girl the other day and she had giant tits and brown hair..." You would most likely form a visual representation in your mind of what they are describing.
Given that the Quaran gives the physical description of Muhammad in the Quaran, I mean literally in detail, ALL MUSLIMS FORM A DEPICTION OF MUHAMMAD IN THEIR MINDS. They all have a picture of what he looks like in their mind.
Hmmm. Wow. That blows my mind that this is a possible wide spread example of hypocrisy in the world of Islam.
- Login to post comments
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Words often are minunderstoof because viewpoints are only from one angle. Pleasure can also be pain and while this explaination fails to convey the 9/11 example you used can one say "this is cold" and another person say "this is hot"? An environment which is common for one species might not be considered hot, while a species from a frost area would be annoyed at the temperature difference.
So neither of us know what the thinking of those who died on 9/11 was nor do I care to dwell in that frame of mind. It is too black and sad.
If I were to say to you "he jumped because the pain of the fire or smoke was too much" then he was taking the path of precieved less pain. Sure they would die either way, but if that was so then why not stay and die in the fire? That is because while you are falling through the air at 185 mph (I'm guessing at the height, weight and max air velocity achieved) the fresh cool air would have been inviting even if your death was about to take place by falling to your death. The idea of no more pain was pleasurable. It was the path precieved to be less painful. It was the path precieved to be more pleasurable.
Glass half empty. Glass half full.
(edit)
I also wanted to add that a person in that situation most likely came to terms with the situation and "was at peace" with their decision.
Thus a path of more pleasure
True, nevertheless I try to align my viewpoints to coincide with reality. My atheism is an example of this approach.
Yes, as long pain remains within a certain threshold. Show me a masochist who is willing to undergo open heart surgery without anesthesia.
People can say whatever they want. I prefer to adhere to more scientific definitions. I'm afraid with your squishy approach to reality, words quickly lose meaning and hence become essentially useless.
Uh, polar bears are comfortable because nature has equipped them to live within sub-freezing temperatures. Levels of comfort do not determine actual temperature readings. Science anyone ?
Apparently you do know what they were thinking, otherwise your Scott Adams quote is useless.
Oh my god digital, ...really ?
Your tortured explanations are amusing, but not much else.
if one chooses the path of buddhism as their therapy of choice, i have nothing against it, but we should always remember that these choices are at base aesthetic. as i once said, for a while zen writings, particularly the platform sutra and koans from the blue cliff record, helped me deal with my mild depression, as did the lotus sutra. now i've found chanting the names of shiva and studying the vedic darshanas to be a better aesthetic fit. does buddhism or hinduism have some essential something that other therapeutic paths do not? for that matter, is following a path essentially "better" than not following a path? of course not. the only true goal of any path is liberation from distress. if you are not distressed, you don't need to follow a path. the four noble truths are fantastic therapy for one whose problem is duhkha. where shakyamuni and i disagree, however, is that i do not believe everyone is dealing with duhkha. that is why i have come to prefer the hindu traditions. they start from the point that both one's problems and the solutions to those problems are as varied as all forms of life. so, here's an atheist shouting joyfully, "om namah shivaya! he mahadev!"
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I knew I should have waited until I got some sleep. I was really tired, no exhausted, when I wrote that post.
What I was trying to say is that while Scott Adams quote isn't perfect it is truthful. We make our decisions based on pleasure or pain, depending on if you see the glass as half empty or full. Personally I believe that the only decisions we make are emotional ones and that is the only thing we control in our lives. The thought of wanting to go get a pizza is derived from influences beyond your control. If you want to have sex in the mornings rather than evenings, is beyond your control.
I'm getting off subject... but I hope you get my point.
There is no need for an urgent reply. Take your time.
Isn't every one following a path? If you use the term literally, then if you go in to a jungle that no one has travelled previously you are a trail-blazer. Otherwise you are following the same path some one else already took. Some paths are less travelled than others.
I am not sure if there is any goal involved in any path, maybe if there is an awarness?
I agree.
I disagree with your view on this item. A person who is in a burning building has more than two choices. A lot more than two choices.
I disagree that all the options were certain death. I believe there were choices which could have saved a life if one thought radically enough.
I agree that there is a stronger basic human urge to minimize and avoid pain (which goes back to the glass half empty/half full).
I disagree with the two choices you gave as both being no pleasure. One is a quick an certain death which a person who mentally prepares themselves for is quite calm and collected. I believe there is no agony or suffering by jumping out the window. Think about it? When I was in the USMC I was taught that if I was on a ship that had sunk and I had no chance of getting out, that the best thing to do is to start swallowing water. I would die very quickly rather than fight myself trying to take another breath. One would mentally have to accept death to fight the urge to continue surviving. Mentally I believe once you convince yourself that you will die and that you can bypass a longer, violent, painful death that your brain kicks in chemicals to calm you down.
Since jumping out of a building is basically suicide, I'll point to a study of suicide victims who had different levels of seretonin in their brains. It could be that a person who finally realizes that they are going to die convinces theirself that jumping is better. They accept this then a rush of chemicals are released. They say a prayer. Think of their loved ones. Maybe wish they didn't have that fight with their wife. Then jump.
I'm no expert of these fields but my own experiences are that once a person convinces theirself to do something their brain chemistry changes and they change the state of their mind.
I found the following:
http://www.werismyki.com/artcls/falling.html
not everyone is purposefully following a therapeutic path, of which religion is just one kind. in all those statements, "path" is shorthand for "purposeful therapeutic path."
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
thanks! that's sort of what I was thinking.
I would like to hear what you believe their other, life saving choices could have been as it relates to those trapped within the WTC.
That is quite a huge assumption. There is a reason why the number of suicide attempts will always outnumber actual suicides. Death incites fear, even among those who view it as a release. I could accept their mental attitude as simple resignation, a depressing acceptance of what cannot be avoided. "Calm" and "collected" makes it sound as if the choices they faced were no more serious than deciding whether or not make a speech in public or some other pedestrian situation.
And while one is painlessly falling at 150 mph they are nevertheless anticipating the impact. That produces fear. I work on top of multi-story buildings at heights that would kill me if I fell off. Believe me just walking to the edge of a roof that has no rails or protective barriers will focus your mind upon the final consequences of a painless fall. I don't panic when conceptualing a slip and a fall, but emotional serenity is not what I experience while pondering the end results.
I would like to read that study if you still have access to it. As far as serotonin levels of suicide victims ( meaning the the findings were post mortem ? ) many acutely depressed people are on drugs whose purpose is to alter levels of serotonin. Does the study make any effort to seperate suicide victims whose serotonin levels were artificially regulated from those who were not ? Also many SSRI's come with warnings that risk of suicide is a potential side effect.
Our brains frequently fail to successfully adapt to stresses and instead create a cascade of imbalances among neurotransmitters which to do not create a calming effect. In fact the results are the complete opposite so that our brains are actually the source of suffering. Ask me how I know.
I read the article hurriedly as I examined your post this morning. I will re-read it again for greater comprehension later today.
The day it happened I sat in my living room watching the live video feed and wondered why some one wouldn't try to go down the facade on the exterior. I checked and the steel lattice was 2 ft across between beams. If I was going to jump, I thought, why not fall trying to save myself. When I was in the Marines I learned several scaling techniques for falling out of windows when you didn't have repelling gear. I later learned from taking up the hobby of bolder hopping and mountain climbing that physics is 95% of all mountain climbing. So I would have used the 2ft space between the beams to attempt a controlled slide down. Would it work? I don't know. There are a lot of variables to consider.
We are both making huge assumptions
An assumption. Brains can release lots of chemicals, plus we are forgetting the factor of faith. A person who is a believer in god or jesus doesn't carry the same opinions.
I've climbed sheer cliffs with open faces at 1,000 feet off the ground. I've looked over the valley of a range and seen nothing below me. I know that feeling.
The studies excluded drug related situations. The purpose was to find what the state of the brain was in naturally with out outside influences. The thing I remember which was interesting, and this showed up in multiple articles, was that a person who had tried multiple suicides but failed had a lower level of the chemicals compared to a person who had tried it once. Almost like a drug addict never getting that same high?
Again we are assuming too much about the people who jumped. I've seen people of faith do crazy stuff with out second guessing it. If a person is truely convinced that they are going to heaven they might say, "well this is it, time to go see jesus".
I'd like to point out that while suicide victims might have different brain cells, these people jumping weren't depressed. So I don't classify them the same way. Fear, physical pain or faith; or a combination of all three could have a huge impact on a jumper.
As I said previously, if I could I would try and MacGyver myself out of the situation. Maybe it is my training/experiences which make me better suited for the situation, but I'm not going to just jump out the window with out trying something on the way down.
If the towers had been filled with Marines who were still in fighting shape ...maybe. Somehow I think most victims were probably older, out of shape business types who had never prepared for such possibilities. The results speak for themselves, though.
I was a person of faith for twenty five years. I still face the same troubling issues as I did before becoming an atheist. If my brain chemistry has been altered by the the presence or absence of faith I have no indicators to that effect. Perhaps I am alone in that regard.
Interesting. I'll leave those experiences to you though, LOL.
I'll just try and Google it. I'm curious.
Faith has it benefits I suppose, a placebo to help one face death. It used to be my defense as well.
While I was waiting for you to reply I remembered some news stories of suicidal bridge jumpers who defied the odds by surviving the fall and whose first thought once they began to fall was basically "I've just made a horrible mistake". I know that at least one of them was a Christian at the time. ( I'm thinking it was a young, bi-polar dude who leapt from the Golden Gate bridge back in the year 2000. ) I'll see if I can find it and post it for you.
Edit: here's a speech Kevin Hines made in 2014, regarding his bi-polar condition which is the back story, and his comment about instant regret are at about 7:47 of the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loiGNZTfu6g Later in the vid he states that he still experiences suicidal ideation but he would never again consider committing suicide.
Yeah, I'll agree with you on that, I am sure there were fit people but I would lean to overweight, out of shape, older people.
I seriously examined the building and the lattice could have been used to slide down in some form. I think I would have used an X form rather than the back and feet method. The reason being is that the X method would be quicker and more painful (more friction). The back and feet method would have been slow and if I am correct from the time the plane hit to the time it fell was 56 minutes and 102 minutes. I doubt I could have made it down in 56 minutes.
During my research I found several really cool items to own if you worked in a building that high. One was a repelling system which I think all buildings should have for the tenants. There are also the tubes which I think are amazing and even if you are fat, old or out of shape you could still use them.
As for faith, I gotta hand it to the religious. Faith is ignorance times a billion. It allows the followers to do crazy stuff.
http://youtu.be/wgN1sLcAQnw?t=1m
lol
I remember that scene from the first Conan movie, I was 23 at the time.
Irrelevant. That a light bulb causes heat does not mean it doesn't cause light. A cause can result in multiple effects and still be the cause of all of them. Your logic is faulty.
All evidence says they do. Show me a single entity capable of useful communication that can honestly claim they never suffered.
Irrelevant. We are not discussing acceptance of suffering, we are discussing suffering itself and that which causes it. The boy cried the first time, hence he suffered.
A lightbulb is not always on, yet that does not change the fact that its existence causes light when it is turned on. You are comparing apples to oranges. Just because a cause does not constantly result in the same state does not mean it is not the cause of a state.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Irrelevant. If a light bulb produces heat and light the cause of the heat and light is not because the light bulb is a light bulb. When a specific set of variables are present the light bulb will produce heat and light, the cause for which is not existing.
Falsehood. Produce all evidence please. And stop trying to shift the blame on me. I'm not the one that is making a claim that existing is the cause of suffering. I've already proved that existing can produce multiple outcomes. By your standards existing should ALWAYS be suffering. It isn't, thus you are incorrect.
Irrelevant. We are discussing the cause of suffering and the taking of the blanket is not which caused the suffering. It was the boy's ego which wanted the blanket back. Thus, existing is not the cause of suffering. His desires caused the suffering.
By your definition existing causes suffering. I exist right now yet I do not suffer, therefore existing does not cause suffering.
You guys can hash it out from here on out. Further participation in this thread will cause me to suffer.
LMAO
Irrelevant. Off topic. The light bulb exists, and its existence is the sole cause of the light and heat it produces.
The variables are irrelevant. Without the lightbulb they accomplish nothing.
A lie.
No.
You're the one shifting.
I never said otherwise. You ARE the one claiming that existing is NOT the cause of suffering, therefore you must prove it, since all evidence supports the opposite.
False premise, therefore you are incorrect in your conclusion.
Irrelevant. Without his existence he could have no ego, and therefore could not suffer. His existence caused the suffering.
You do and have suffered, therefore your assertion is a bald lie.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
yet another reason why i could never embrace buddhism. i just don't believe in any permanent or sustained state of samadhi. i do see plenty of evidence that people experience moments of mystical bliss, perhaps sometimes even hours or days if they're naturally talented in that area and if they cultivate that talent (e.g., ramana maharshi), but i do not believe the human condition can be escaped completely.
digital, are you saying you've achieved enlightenment in some degree? because it's my understanding that the viewpoint of the sutras is that only bodhi can eliminate trishna (and thus duhkha) totally.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I don't believe in any thing permanent either. Nirvana is not permanant but only a state of bliss.
Like all things, there is an end to all states.
The analogy I use is standing in a door way with one side being total bliss and the other side being suffering.
A man exists + who has passion for a woman + the woman does not reciprocate = a state of suffering
A child exists + is ignorant of the childish taunts + is laughed at by school mates for being intelligent = a state of suffering
A woman exists + who has an aversion for over weight people + who shares an office with an over weight colleague = a state of suffering.
What can you remove from these equations which would remove suffering?
You could kill the man/child/woman and they would no longer exist, but you would also kill off the chance for happiness.
You could get a different love, different school and work in another office but because the passion/ignorance/aversion still have not been treated most likely they will arise again to cause suffering.
You could remove the passion, the ignorance and the aversion and then the suffering would disappear.
If you use that low of a bar to define suffering, I don't see how you can say that Vastet is wrong. I don't consider any of those things anywhere near "suffering". If your goal is to minimize all pain for the sake of eliminating pain, suicide seems like the only rational course of action.
Which is absolutely impossible short of a brain damage to the point where you are no longer aware of your suffering.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Based on Vas's definition, existing is the cause of all suffering?
1) you exist 2) existing causes suffering 3) you are suffering
That means right now, every living being is suffering, non-stop. 24/7? No. We don't always suffer so there must be another source to the suffering of the mind.
The examples given were simplistic on purpose. I was attempting to break down a series of events in to a mathematical formula to make it easier to see. If it doesn't work for you then discard it.
Using your ridiculously broad definition of suffering, every human is suffering 24/7. There isn't a single human on the planet who has absolutly everything they desire and if desiring and not having something is "suffering" then every single human on the planet is suffering, simply because they exist. And if there is someone out there who wants litterally nothing, they must have the most miserable existence I can imagine.
The beauty of math is that it isn't subjective. It either works or it doesn't. If you suggest that having an aversion to something and having to be around it or wanting something that you don't have is suffering, then existence is the cause of suffering and the only possible cause. Even the most basic lifeforms "want" something, even the most basic chemicals have aversions and attractions. I think your definition of suffering is so watered down as to be meaningless, it essentially means existence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You misunderstand me. I'm obviously not explaining myself well enough which is quite typical of me.
A person is not always suffering. A person can laugh. They do not suffer. A person can can have an orgasm. They do not suffer. A person can accept the results of life. They do not suffer.
That last example happens every day hundreds of millions of times around the world. It is extremely common. People get laid off from their job and say "I'll find another job for more pay". People are verbally abused. They say "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". People lose a softball game, "It was just a game and we are playing for fun".
Every single day bad fortunes happen to people but they do not suffer. They accept it. The deal with the problems and persevere.
So you are saying that suffering and pleasure are mutually exclusive and you can only experience one of them at a time? That is simply false.
Yeah, people cope with suffering, some better than others. That doesn't mean they don't feel the pain. Even if you can ignore it or get distracted by other things, it is still there.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
A person exists. A hammer exists.
The person picks up a hammer and tries to hit a nail in to the wall, they instead hit their finger.
Based on Vas's definition, the suffering comes from the person existing.
Based on my definition the suffering comes from the response to the action.
The action is impossible without the existence of the person and the hammer. There can be no actions and no consequences without existence. You are trying to make things more complicated than they are.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Only if your definition of suffering solely includes pain as a result of a direct action. If your definition of suffering extends to not getting what you want or experiencing something you don't want, then it is completely inseperable from existence.
It is theoretically possible that a person might live their entire life without hitting their thumb with a hammer, it is utterly impossible to even imagine a human existing without desires and aversions. Desires and aversions are caused by existence (one might argue they are the very definition of consciousness).
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I feel remiss given the quality of responses. So I'll open a can of worms.
A hammer striking a sentient being doesn't actually cause any pain or suffering. It is the nervous system of the being which causes the person to experience pain. At least, it does if that beings' nervous system is operating properly.
ALL pain is internal. ALL suffering is internal. Outside forces may or may not influence the situation, but the pain and suffering itself is a completely internal process that does not require anything more than existence to occur.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't want to mix up the focus of the discussion with using pain and suffering, but in my example the hitting of the finger which causes pain is symbolic of a person having a broken heart or road rage in a traffic jam.
Would you agree that it is theoretically possible that a person might learn to live their life with out desire or aversion?
Would it be correct in saying "you breath air because you exist"?
I agree. The nervous system is the medium which transfers the impulse to the brain. The hammer striking the finger is not the pain. The human mind is what reacts to that impulse. People will react differently to the act because some nervous systems might be highly sensitive while others are less sensitive. It is even possible they felt pleasure from the event.
I agree! except for the exitence of the being.
As I mentioned in a previous posting to Beyond. Is it possible that a person could train their mind to experience no suffering? such as no anger. no hate. no lust?
Yes.
I've never experienced hate. But I don't believe anyone can train themselves to not experience emotion. They may be able to repress or control it to some degree, but not to abolish it completely. Not without surgery.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, I wouldn't. At least not live for very long, you would die of dehydration, hypothermia, heatstroke, get hit by a car or some other deadly malady when you ignored your desires and aversions.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I understand now your view even though I disagree
I was speaking about emotional not physical. I assumed you knew I had excluded the physical portion of this subject and was speaking emotionally/the human mind.
It isn't anymore possible or healthy to live without emotional desires or aversions either. They are the main reason why we are capable of cooperating as societies. Those who have a diminished capacity for feeling desires and aversions often have a difficult time and get killed by the rest of us, or get locked up, when say killing someone becomes a completely rational solution to a problem. Although, as far as I know, even those with extreme alexithymia, schizoid disorder or psychopathic disorders all continue to have some level of desires and aversions. Even if it were possible, I don't think that it would be a good thing to seek, emotions are good.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Don't think of a person being a vulcan; one who supresses all emotion.
Think of a person who is not controlled or attached to the emotions. This is part of the compassion, understanding and love for all life.
You can't have compassion without desires and/or aversions, if having unsatisfied desires or being subjected to an aversion is suffering, then Vastet is right, suffering is caused by existence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
re :: Yes honey from the comb is sweet to the taste; know so is wisdom
Time keeps on slipping into the future (smile) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eoxHSC9IU {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eoxHSC9IU}
See or View Upload --
Pon Farr
a lot of this hair-splitting over "suffering" is the result of a language barrier. many words do not have one-to-one equivalents in other languages, and indian languages, like sanskrit and pali, the languages of the buddhist scriptures (though admnittedly most of the "sanskrit sources" are reconstructions from chinese or tibetan "translations" of now supposedly lost sanskrit originals) are especially notorious for being untranslatable into english. "duhkha" just would not have the same connotation for a sixth century B.C.E. sanskrit-speaker as "suffering" has for a twenty-first century english speaker. i've always been a firm believer that the vast majority of indian terms should be left untranslated in english books and a glossary provided at the end, rather than fucking everything up with a translation because you underestimate your readers. the choice to translate duhkha or dukkha as "suffering" was basically made by 19th century armchair orientalists like max mueller, and we now have to deal with over a century's worth of scholarship, both serious and popular, that has built off the erroneous assumptions resulting from that choice. "duhkha" does not mean being in constant pain, depression, or distress. one can live in duhkha and feel quite happy. it basically means that nothing done in life will bring us lasting satisfaction: the "thirst" or "craving" (common, equally problematic translations of "trishna" or "tanha") can never be sated by indulgence of any sort, even charitable or ascetic indulgence. one does not follow the eightfold path to feel better; one follows it to escape samsara. it is assumed, however, that one who has stored up good karma over countless rebirths will feel like prince siddhartha felt, dissatisfied and depressed, because his good karma will allow him to develop the wisdom to see things as they are.
there is absolutely no way to justify karma, samsara, or duhkha in any modern scientific or psychological sense. they are among the axiomatic principles of bauddha dharma: you either accept them or you don't. i don't, which is why i'm not a buddhist. buddhism, like every other religion, is utterly unscientific. religion is not scientific because it neither works from modern science's foundational principles (empiricism and falsifiability) nor does it serve the same purpose science does (to explain the workings of the empirical universe). science is not therapeutic and religion is not descriptive, and whenever either tries to cross into the other's territory, the result is confusion and bitterness. i don't reject religion because science convinces me to. i reject religion because there is no religion whose axioms i accept, nor do i have any malaise that any religion claims to treat.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
You can have compassion with out desire. Compassion is empathy for others.
lol
You have an amazing ability to explain things in detail.
Compassion IS a desire or aversion by definition. If you have compassion, then either you derive pleasure when someone else is doing well- and thus unfulfilled if they aren't- or you have an aversion to someone else not doing well, and thus are subjected to it if they aren't. The very definition you provided for suffering. So if you have compassion, you are suffering (unless everyone in the world is doing perfect). Thus, Vastet is right, it is so entwined into existence that the only way to eliminate it is to end existence and for all practical purposes, it is caused by existence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I have compassion for others and no desire or aversion is involved.
(edit)
And which definition of suffering are you referring to?
thank you very much. i'll take that compliment. it affirms my choice of profession.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
You should be very confident that your career choice has been a wise one.
I have problems communicating what I have in my head. I can see things and build things in my head with out having to draw it out, but trying to convey an idea verbally in detail has proved to be difficult.