Suffering pleasure

[Sam Vara]

"Maverick Philosopher" Bill Vallicella has offered this on his blog:

We suffer pain, but we also suffer pleasure. Fundamentally, to suffer is to be passive, to be patient rather than agent, to be acted upon, to be in the thrall of another, to be at the mercy of what is not oneself. Excessive pleasure and pain should both be avoided as one avoids heteronomy, the heteronomy of the not-self. Compare Plato, Timaeus 86c:

. . . excessive pains and pleasures are justly to be regarded as the greatest diseases to which the soul is liable. For a man who is in great joy or in great pain, in his unseasonable eagerness to attain the one and to avoid the other, is not able to see or hear anything rightly, but he is mad and is at the same time utterly incapable of any participation in reason.
It is useful to practice distancing oneself from one’s sensations in order to study them objectively. To sensations good and bad, say: “You are only a sensation, an external occurrence whose effect on me, for good or ill, is partly due to my cooperation and is therefore partly under my control.” The worldling seeks pleasure (‘excitement,’ ‘thrills’) and shuns pain. The sage accepts both as byproducts of worthwhile activities.

The mastery of desire and aversion is not easy, and it is a good bet that one won't advance far in it; but any advance is better than none.

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com ... asure.html

Although not a Buddhist, he is a great admirer of Buddhism and a regular meditator. This is a slightly different take on the notion of pleasant vedanā also being a form of dukkha, the usual reasons being given are that pleasure is changeable, and conditioned, therefore unsatisfactory. I like the idea that suffering is essentially passive, and how it therefore might also include pleasure. Also the distancing oneself from sensations, which is recommended in several different suttas. And, I have to say, the pessimistic realism of the final line appeals.

[mjaviem]

I've only read the quoted text but anyway. I believe what Buddha taught is the truth about suffering. Whatever people might say about suffering, if this is what the Buddha taught they are right, if it deviates from it, they are wrong. "To suffer is to be passive... to be at the mercy of what is not oneself..." all this sounds wrong. And the parts that sound right are no news, these are taught already in buddhism. Well, just my take...

[pegembara]

Overheard on a flight a miserable crying child going home to the Philippines from holidays. "I want to stay in Singapore. Why must we go home?"
Pleasure is dukkha in disguise.

"I was happy without shoes until I saw people enjoying their Nikes and Adidas"

[Alino]

Pleasure and pain are of the same nature - to pressure, what changes is amplitude of feeling (and perception of it).

Bullet going through the body, and massaging the body are of the same nature - pressure, what changes is it's intencity/amplitude/strenght.

Dukkha is something hard to bear, heavy, that exercise pressure.
Even 1g of weight have heaviness (dukkha) quality to it.

More mind becomes pure and light, more he understands dukkha as dukkha (pressure as pressure) and abandons even those pressures that considered to be pleasant.

Pleasantness of things is something relative.
For exemple:
Someone who wear picky clothes will experiance pleasure if wear cotton clothes; someone who wear cotton clothes will experience pleasure if he wear silk clothes, but one who wear no clothes (wear air^^) will experience silk as coarse...

Imho

[Zenny]

Pleasure and pain are of the same nature - to pressure, what changes is amplitude of feeling (and perception of it).

Bullet going through the body, and massaging the body are of the same nature - pressure, what changes is it's intencity/amplitude/strenght.

Dukkha is something hard to bear, heavy, that exercise pressure.
Even 1g of weight have heaviness (dukkha) quality to it.

More mind becomes pure and light, more he understands dukkha as dukkha (pressure as pressure) and abandons even those pressures that considered to be pleasant.

Pleasantness of things is something relative.
For exemple:
Someone who wear picky clothes will experiance pleasure if wear cotton clothes; someone who wear cotton clothes will experience pleasure if he wear silk clothes, but one who wear no clothes (wear air^^) will experience silk as coarse...

Imho

This is terribly wrong.
A bullet and a massage are qualitatively and consequently totally different.
This equation of the two is an affront to common sense language.

[Mr. Seek]

Whoever sees pleasure as pain,
and pain as an arrow,
and that there is nothing between the two:
With what will he be what in the world?

Sariputta Theragatha

[Zenny]

Whoever sees pleasure as pain,
and pain as an arrow,
and that there is nothing between the two:
With what will he be what in the world?

Sariputta Theragatha

And this means?

[Alino]

This is terribly wrong.
A bullet and a massage are qualitatively and consequently totally different.
This equation of the two is an affront to common sense language.

I don't think that they have différent quality/nature. Purely mechanical speaking they nature is to exercise pressure.
But because of the difference of intencity on that same pressure, it becomes pleasure or pain.

In meditation you can see how your pain of stretching muscles can become neutral or even pleasant heat. And vice verse pleasure trough the body can become coarse and heavy...

Imho

[Mr. Seek]

Whoever sees pleasure as pain,
and pain as an arrow,
and that there is nothing between the two:
With what will he be what in the world?

Sariputta Theragatha

And this means?

My interpretation, although I haven't read the pali yet: Pleasure is [nearly] the same as pain. Both arise, both cease, both are and or lead to stress. Also, both are perceptions. Pain is a perception. Perception is an arrow. Classifying into good or bad, appealing or unappealing, pleasure or pain, leads to stress. There is [nearly] no difference between pleasure and pain at the end of the path--as with in descriptions of the so-called fourth jhana, where both pleasure and pain are abandoned. Then, if you do that [and maybe some more], then there is nirvana.

[Zenny]

This is terribly wrong.
A bullet and a massage are qualitatively and consequently totally different.
This equation of the two is an affront to common sense language.

I don't think that they have différent quality/nature. Purely mechanical speaking they nature is to exercise pressure.
But because of the difference of intencity on that same pressure, it becomes pleasure or pain.

In meditation you can see how your pain of stretching muscles can become neutral or even pleasant heat. And vice verse pleasure trough the body can become coarse and heavy...

Imho

There is a qualitative difference between injurious pain and the pleasurable exertion in exercising.
You cannot understand pain and pleasure by mechanics!
We are not machines!

[un8-]

This is a slightly different take on the notion of pleasant vedanā also being a form of dukkha, the usual reasons being given are that pleasure is changeable, and conditioned, therefore unsatisfactory. I like the idea that suffering is essentially passive, and how it therefore might also include pleasure. Also the distancing oneself from sensations, which is recommended in several different suttas. And, I have to say, the pessimistic realism of the final line appeals.

I remember reading a sutta that states that pleasant feelings are also dukkha.

I think in general there are multiple layers of dukkha, like what video game developers call a parallax, an example:



On the immediate level pain is suffering, on the semi-immediate level all feelings are suffering, and on the absent/distant level all change is suffering.

So back to your writing, the more distant/less immediate the suffering, the more passive and in the background it is. So one has to step away from the immediate to become more aware of the distant background. This, I think, is demonstrated in the cula-sunnata sutta of removing the people from the village, the village from the forest, the forest from earth, the earth from water, water from space, space from consciousness, consciousness from perception, etc..

Good post!

edit: If you like this stuff, I recommend checking out Ven Bodhesako's writing.

[Zenny]

Whoever sees pleasure as pain,
and pain as an arrow,
and that there is nothing between the two:
With what will he be what in the world?

Sariputta Theragatha

And this means?

My interpretation, although I haven't read the pali yet: Pleasure is [nearly] the same as pain. Both arise, both cease, both are and or lead to stress. Also, both are perceptions. Pain is a perception. Perception is an arrow. Classifying into good or bad, appealing or unappealing, pleasure or pain, leads to stress. There is [nearly] no difference between pleasure and pain at the end of the path--as with in descriptions of the so-called fourth jhana, where both pleasure and pain are abandoned. Then, if you do that [and maybe some more], then there is nirvana.

See my above post to Alino.
Injurious pain and healthy pleasure are totally different.
And flourishing as a human involves knowing and applying this difference!

[Zenny]

This is a slightly different take on the notion of pleasant vedanā also being a form of dukkha, the usual reasons being given are that pleasure is changeable, and conditioned, therefore unsatisfactory. I like the idea that suffering is essentially passive, and how it therefore might also include pleasure. Also the distancing oneself from sensations, which is recommended in several different suttas. And, I have to say, the pessimistic realism of the final line appeals.

I remember reading a sutta that states that pleasant feelings are also dukkha.

I think in general there are multiple layers of dukkha, like what video game developers call a parallax, an example:



On the immediate level pain is suffering, on the semi-immediate level all feelings are suffering, and on the absent/distant level all change is suffering.

So back to your writing, the more distant/less immediate the suffering, the more passive and in the background it is. So one has to step away from the immediate to become more aware of the distant background. This, I think, is demonstrated in the cula-sunnata sutta of removing the people from the village, the village from the forest, the forest from earth, the earth from water, water from space, space from consciousness, consciousness from perception, etc..

Good post!

edit: If you like this stuff, I recommend checking out Ven Bodhesako's writing.

Nirvana is a state of being,a feeling. Is that dukkha as well?

[un8-]

Nirvana is a state of being,a feeling. Is that dukkha as well?

Nibbana is not a feeling. It's described as a pleasure metaphorically, not literally. For example, the pleasure one would get by leaving screaming children, which is removing something from experience. It also isn't a state of being either.

[Mr. Seek]

And this means?

My interpretation, although I haven't read the pali yet: Pleasure is [nearly] the same as pain. Both arise, both cease, both are and or lead to stress. Also, both are perceptions. Pain is a perception. Perception is an arrow. Classifying into good or bad, appealing or unappealing, pleasure or pain, leads to stress. There is [nearly] no difference between pleasure and pain at the end of the path--as with in descriptions of the so-called fourth jhana, where both pleasure and pain are abandoned. Then, if you do that [and maybe some more], then there is nirvana.

See my above post to Alino.
Injurious pain and healthy pleasure are totally different.
And flourishing as a human involves knowing and applying this difference!

It's a complicated topic, all depends on one's view

Not view as in views (judgements, opinions), but view as in the way you "see reality", the way you perceive, whether you have vision/knowledge (vijja) or you don't (avijja), or if something in between (on the path to vijja)

worldly =/= on the path
on the path =/= off the path