There's a very good, old saying that goes: 'Too soon old, too late smart.' It applies to countless areas of life learning where we might say, "I wish I knew that a long time ago!" But then there's another good old saying that says: "If wishes were fishes, our nets would be full."
We want to at least avoid the suffering that produced the new wisdom, but it would be much better still to be wise when you're young enough to enjoy using the knowledge. We each have our pet areas where this is especially true, and the wistful yearning is yet another kind of suffering.
Old timers offer advice from a wiser perspective, but we almost always ignore it and assume our uniqueness will confer immunity from inevitable consequences - which are, again, a necessary measure of suffering.
Why does learning have to happen with suffering?
The question implies that suffering is bad, but is it?
Suffering is a constant reminder that we are still alive. In this regard, suffering is a most welcome bit of feedback from the world. When the suffering stops, our ticket gets punched and we're all done here.
Suffering helps pare away concerns that were previously thought to be urgent needs. Only after we let go of these concerns along the way can we realize these were hindrances to growth. Nearly all of these 'urgent needs' were/are actually nothing more than forms of desire or fear.
Perhaps a concrete example of this would help: Let's say a young child wants candy. Not wishing to allow a bad habit to form, the parent denies it. The child feels some desire and, although it may be expressed as frustration, the child now also feels fear that autonomy will never come, so the desire gains urgency and a tantrum follows. The adult soon consents for any number of reasons, the candy is allowed, and the child is temporarily satisfied. Let's say this repeats and soon, in fact, a bad habit does develop (a 'sweet tooth'). One day, given the insatiable nature of such things, the child will grow to become a patient of a doctor offering treatment for diabetes, or will be seated in the dentist's chair lamenting an immoderate approach to sweets. Perhaps the patient is now a parent with a child at home and so a vow is made to stand firm for inculcating better habits. The vow will be good, until the first tantrum is thrown.
This seems to be a circular pattern, rather than one of growth. It is not only normal for a child to seek autonomy, but it is developmentally necessary. Of course, with that comes responsibility for consequences. It is also a matter of course, that one cannot gain knowledge and grow without suffering. So, in order for growth to occur and the cycle to be broken, the suffering needs to happen by denying the initial desire and forestalling the sought-after autonomy. Otherwise, the circular pattern will continue at the expense of growth.
The trick in imparting wisdom is to be able to point out the relative unimportance of desire, especially before fear is allowed to strengthen it. Often, a good parent will assure a child that, one day, he or she will have the authority in choosing which desires to satisfy. The assured child will then eagerly grow toward this goal, rather than fear it will never happen. A wise adult is one who is wise enough to enlighten a child on the nature of desire, before the desire has a strong hold in the moment. Adults understand that desire is a form of thought that is distinct from our actual, physical needs, which are surprisingly few. But, understanding is one thing, acting on it is another, teaching it is yet another.
Of course, all of this is laid out in pristine, academic context. Actual experience rarely follows the ideal model and so gaining wisdom will mostly remain a sloppy business with plenty of suffering. But, in such times it's always good to be reminded that suffering is only for the living.
Of course, the weather could always be nicer, but you could also be dead. Life would be more enjoyable if one didn't have illness or didn't lose the car keys, but one could always lose one's life pretty much at any time in any number of circumstances. The obituaries are universally populated by former sufferers, who, if by some miraculous means could be given a choice to resume suffering, would almost all probably take the chance.
These are odd ways of pointing out that we fool ourselves by comparing the wrong things to one other. If we think the tea isn't warm enough, it is because we compare it to warmer tea. Instead, the proper comparison would be to not having any tea, or not having the means to heat it at all, or to not even being physically able to drink tea.
Some have claimed that one should rejoice in one's suffering. They assert suffering is the means of salvation, like that of Christ. I didn't hear so much about that rejoicing part in the story of Jesus nailed up on the cross. Still, his example of suffering seems to stand highest of all, and the key piece of wisdom he was able to impart at that moment was acceptance. Acceptance is an utter lack of fear or desire for anything other than what is. Surrender to suffering is the surest end to suffering - while one is still alive - and none of us is going to be here all that much longer, regardless.
It sounds too trite to say one should 'surrender to suffering.' It might be more helpful to point out that all of our suffering arises from the stories we tell ourselves about life, about how unfair it is. The 'as ifs' or the 'if onlys' that comprise most of our narratives are the singular source of suffering. Physical pain is not suffering, it is physical pain - and, yes, it does suck. But, in all cases, it should be compared with the inability to experience pain, which is death. (When properly compared, physical pain can be accepted as temporary. If you are over age twenty you're probably already doing it on a daily basis, certainly so if you're fifty or more.)
Is death that bad? 'Hard to say for sure. The only clear thing we know is that it isn't life. And, since death is inevitable, any opinion or statement about it is merely part of another story; a story of suffering. Stories about death are among the best examples of suffering, for the subject, but more for the listener.
Detaching one's self from the imperative of the narrative, which is to loosen one's attachment to form, is to approach the end of suffering while still being alive. It is good and right to love impermanent things, as long as one realizes what that means, even while one is enjoying the experience. The enjoyment is also impermanent, as is the self that is capable of enjoyment. Although life and suffering seem nearly synonymous, it is only so for the forms of life. If one's focus is also on the animating energy of life, behind the forms, then suffering has little to hold on to.
We want to at least avoid the suffering that produced the new wisdom, but it would be much better still to be wise when you're young enough to enjoy using the knowledge. We each have our pet areas where this is especially true, and the wistful yearning is yet another kind of suffering.
Old timers offer advice from a wiser perspective, but we almost always ignore it and assume our uniqueness will confer immunity from inevitable consequences - which are, again, a necessary measure of suffering.
Why does learning have to happen with suffering?
The question implies that suffering is bad, but is it?
Suffering is a constant reminder that we are still alive. In this regard, suffering is a most welcome bit of feedback from the world. When the suffering stops, our ticket gets punched and we're all done here.
Suffering helps pare away concerns that were previously thought to be urgent needs. Only after we let go of these concerns along the way can we realize these were hindrances to growth. Nearly all of these 'urgent needs' were/are actually nothing more than forms of desire or fear.
Perhaps a concrete example of this would help: Let's say a young child wants candy. Not wishing to allow a bad habit to form, the parent denies it. The child feels some desire and, although it may be expressed as frustration, the child now also feels fear that autonomy will never come, so the desire gains urgency and a tantrum follows. The adult soon consents for any number of reasons, the candy is allowed, and the child is temporarily satisfied. Let's say this repeats and soon, in fact, a bad habit does develop (a 'sweet tooth'). One day, given the insatiable nature of such things, the child will grow to become a patient of a doctor offering treatment for diabetes, or will be seated in the dentist's chair lamenting an immoderate approach to sweets. Perhaps the patient is now a parent with a child at home and so a vow is made to stand firm for inculcating better habits. The vow will be good, until the first tantrum is thrown.
This seems to be a circular pattern, rather than one of growth. It is not only normal for a child to seek autonomy, but it is developmentally necessary. Of course, with that comes responsibility for consequences. It is also a matter of course, that one cannot gain knowledge and grow without suffering. So, in order for growth to occur and the cycle to be broken, the suffering needs to happen by denying the initial desire and forestalling the sought-after autonomy. Otherwise, the circular pattern will continue at the expense of growth.
The trick in imparting wisdom is to be able to point out the relative unimportance of desire, especially before fear is allowed to strengthen it. Often, a good parent will assure a child that, one day, he or she will have the authority in choosing which desires to satisfy. The assured child will then eagerly grow toward this goal, rather than fear it will never happen. A wise adult is one who is wise enough to enlighten a child on the nature of desire, before the desire has a strong hold in the moment. Adults understand that desire is a form of thought that is distinct from our actual, physical needs, which are surprisingly few. But, understanding is one thing, acting on it is another, teaching it is yet another.
Of course, all of this is laid out in pristine, academic context. Actual experience rarely follows the ideal model and so gaining wisdom will mostly remain a sloppy business with plenty of suffering. But, in such times it's always good to be reminded that suffering is only for the living.
Of course, the weather could always be nicer, but you could also be dead. Life would be more enjoyable if one didn't have illness or didn't lose the car keys, but one could always lose one's life pretty much at any time in any number of circumstances. The obituaries are universally populated by former sufferers, who, if by some miraculous means could be given a choice to resume suffering, would almost all probably take the chance.
These are odd ways of pointing out that we fool ourselves by comparing the wrong things to one other. If we think the tea isn't warm enough, it is because we compare it to warmer tea. Instead, the proper comparison would be to not having any tea, or not having the means to heat it at all, or to not even being physically able to drink tea.
Some have claimed that one should rejoice in one's suffering. They assert suffering is the means of salvation, like that of Christ. I didn't hear so much about that rejoicing part in the story of Jesus nailed up on the cross. Still, his example of suffering seems to stand highest of all, and the key piece of wisdom he was able to impart at that moment was acceptance. Acceptance is an utter lack of fear or desire for anything other than what is. Surrender to suffering is the surest end to suffering - while one is still alive - and none of us is going to be here all that much longer, regardless.
It sounds too trite to say one should 'surrender to suffering.' It might be more helpful to point out that all of our suffering arises from the stories we tell ourselves about life, about how unfair it is. The 'as ifs' or the 'if onlys' that comprise most of our narratives are the singular source of suffering. Physical pain is not suffering, it is physical pain - and, yes, it does suck. But, in all cases, it should be compared with the inability to experience pain, which is death. (When properly compared, physical pain can be accepted as temporary. If you are over age twenty you're probably already doing it on a daily basis, certainly so if you're fifty or more.)
Is death that bad? 'Hard to say for sure. The only clear thing we know is that it isn't life. And, since death is inevitable, any opinion or statement about it is merely part of another story; a story of suffering. Stories about death are among the best examples of suffering, for the subject, but more for the listener.
Detaching one's self from the imperative of the narrative, which is to loosen one's attachment to form, is to approach the end of suffering while still being alive. It is good and right to love impermanent things, as long as one realizes what that means, even while one is enjoying the experience. The enjoyment is also impermanent, as is the self that is capable of enjoyment. Although life and suffering seem nearly synonymous, it is only so for the forms of life. If one's focus is also on the animating energy of life, behind the forms, then suffering has little to hold on to.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The settings page indicates comments can be posted, but others have had trouble in the attempt. Let me know at rjworrall@gmail.com if either have trouble posting, or if you have a comment you would like to send along.