[ENG] The purpose of suffering
All psychological suffering comes from a distorted perception of reality. This mistaken perspective consists of false beliefs, unrealistic expectations, superficial goals and naive hopes about fulfilment, relationships, happiness and love.
When failing to meet these naive goals, unconscious guilt is developed, and sometimes projected unto others as cause for failure. The actual cause of the failure to meet the goals are the mistaken beliefs about the world and the self, and the naive goals that are derived from these beliefs.
Aggression, violence and abuse are seen as justified ways of protecting our beliefs and goals from the contradicting evidence in our direct experience. Letting go of attachment to these expectations requires admitting to having been wrong, to have made a mistake in believing something that turned out not to be true. By this admission, guilt, punishment, aggression and abuse is seen as pointless suffering that is created for oneself and others.
Peace, forgiveness, freedom and love become a possibility when we are willing to recognise that suffering signifies that we have made a mistake in believing something not true. The purpose of suffering is therefore achieved, and it is no longer necessary.
Why do we suffer?
To pay the price for maintaining our false beliefs.
Somebody must be to blame for things not going as they “should”.
And blame demands punishment, or sacrifice, which is seen as “justified” suffering.
When the false belief is recognised as being a mistake, it is no longer defended against experience, and blame, punishment, sacrifice and suffering are no longer necessary.
Why do people lie?
We are collectively deluded. Societal pressures in the form of traditions or unconscious patters (archetypes, stories and “memes”) perpetuate and romanticise superficial and naive beliefs about the world and the self. We teach our children and each other about the necessity of sacrifice, punishment and guilt, so the suffering is passed down to the next generation.
What can we do?
We can forgive all guilt, so that mistakes can be recognised without the fear of punishment. Action to reduce harm can be implemented without the idea of guilt and the subsequent justification for retribution, which is the paying forward of suffering.
Learning is made easy and pleasant in the absence of fear, which stifles curiosity.
Wisdom is required to see forgiveness as the means of moving on from mistaken beliefs.
Wisdom is teaching by example.
Whether somebody else learns is not your concern.
People don’t need to suffer, yet learning requires them be free to choose it.
When you choose to believe something not real, you have chosen suffering.
Learning begins after you decide that you’ve suffered enough.
Comentarii (7)
Non-hypothetical: I am harrassed and bullied, verbally and physically, on a recurrent basis, by the same person. Talking to them does not change the situation. Raising it to the authorities does not resolve it, as the authorities do not intervene, regardless of their formal attributions. I catch the person off guard and apply violence, as it seems the only *action* I can take in the physical realm. The person stops bullying me from that moment onwards, and my suffering in that specific context ends.
Îmi pare rău, nu te pot ajuta cu asta.
No need, I helped myself. It was in the context of the below section, as I have a feeling (not sure if correct) that the article dis-encourages physical confrontation when there is no other choice available in order to stop abuse.
„What can we do?
We can forgive all guilt, so that mistakes can be recognised without the fear of punishment. Action to reduce harm can be implemented without the idea of guilt and the subsequent justification for retribution, which is the paying forward of suffering.”
The article emphasizes that suffering is caused by expectations and not events. One can be at peace with what is happening, and choose the best solution without projecting blame. We all make mistakes, that is how we learn. Suffering simply signals that we have made a mistake in believing something not true about ourselves (like believing we are special/superior/in control), something not true about others (like that they are evil or rotten), or something not true about the world (that it is dangerous and requires constant self-defense).
What I am challenging, using the personal example I laid out, is that these blanket statements, most of the time seemingly made from the confort of a couch, seem to discount the physical realities of day to day life and, in my opinion, lead to meditative inaction where firm action is needed – like, to an extreme, having to resort to physical violence for physical protection when all other real available options fail, in a *specific* context. It has nothing to do with assigning blame, nor with a *general* outlook about others or about the world.
There are however universal laws, and well established psychological truths, supported empirically and experientially. That the impact of events on emotions is mediated by cognitions is one of them.
Setting healthy boundaries doesn’t require suffering, indeed we give a better quality “no” when we remain calm.
You don’t have to agree with my perspective, or even read it if you do not find it useful.
Again – although I feel at the root we’re saying similar things with an out-of-sync vocabulary – saying „No” with the pupose of seeting healthy boundaries sometimes ends up needing to be done physically, in the physical world and there’s plenty of empirical truth on this as well, perhaps even in your personal experience. If you have mastered a radical distinction between the pain of repeated physical & verbal abuse and suffering (in practice, not just in theory), I could only hope to get there someday. To be clear, I am not challenging that acting from calmness does not produce the best possible decisions and actions, even in a physical conflict situation. If this article is not saying not to use force when no other options of saying „No” with the pupose of seeting healthy boundaries are available, I am misreading the article.