I have also noticed that people who proffer these ideas are extraordinarily touchy about anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest about them..
I don't how many people have read Barbara Ehrenreich's book on having cancer and also her writing on the same old bullshit of positive thinking twits--here is a reprint of an intro an article of hers on the internet that gets the message across very succinctly:
http://www.alternet.org/story/146940/barbara_ehrenreich%3A_why_forced_positive_thinking_is_a_total_crock
Barbara Ehrenreich: Why Forced Positive Thinking Is a Total Crock
May 20, 2010
|
In a recent edition of the NY Times is an equally good article on "The Value of Suffering" which I am running here as a "think piece"
Advertisement
Opinion
The Value of Suffering
Daehyun Kim
By PICO IYER
Published: September 7, 2013 241 Comments
NARA, Japan — Hundreds of Syrians are apparently killed by chemical
weapons, and the attempt to protect others from that fate threatens to
kill many more. A child perishes with her mother in a tornado in
Oklahoma, the month after an 8-year-old is slain by a bomb in Boston.
Runaway trains claim dozens of lives in otherwise placid Canada and
Spain. At least 46 people are killed in a string of coordinated bombings
aimed at an ice cream shop, bus station and famous restaurant in
Baghdad. Does the torrent of suffering ever abate — and can one possibly
find any point in suffering?
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Wise men in every tradition tell us that suffering brings clarity,
illumination; for the Buddha, suffering is the first rule of life, and
insofar as some of it arises from our own wrongheadedness — our
cherishing of self — we have the cure for it within. Thus in certain
cases, suffering may be an effect, as well as a cause, of taking
ourselves too seriously. I once met a Zen-trained painter in Japan, in
his 90s, who told me that suffering is a privilege, it moves us toward
thinking about essential things and shakes us out of shortsighted
complacency; when he was a boy, he said, it was believed you should pay
for suffering, it proves such a hidden blessing.
Yet none of that begins to apply to a child gassed to death (or born
with AIDS or hit by a “limited strike”). Philosophy cannot cure a
toothache, and the person who starts going on about its long-term
benefits may induce a headache, too. Anyone who’s been close to a loved
one suffering from depression knows that the vicious cycle behind her
condition means that, by definition, she can’t hear the logic or
reassurances we extend to her; if she could, she wouldn’t be suffering
from depression.
Occasionally, it’s true, I’ll meet someone — call him myself — who makes
the same mistake again and again, heedless of what friends and sense
tell him, unable even to listen to himself. Then he crashes his car, or
suffers a heart attack, and suddenly calamity works on him like an alarm
clock; by packing a punch that no gentler means can summon, suffering
breaks him open and moves him to change his ways.
Occasionally, too, I’ll see that suffering can be in the eye of the
beholder, our ignorant projection. The quadriplegic asks you not to
extend sympathy to her; she’s happy, even if her form of pain is more
visible than yours. The man on the street in Calcutta, India, or
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, overturns all our simple notions about the
relation of terrible conditions to cheerfulness and energy and asks
whether we haven’t just brought our ideas of poverty with us.
But does that change all the many times when suffering leaves us with no
seeming benefit at all, and only a resentment of those who tell us to
look on the bright side and count our blessings and recall that time
heals all wounds (when we know it doesn’t)? None of us expects life to
be easy; Job merely wants an explanation for his constant unease. To
live, as Nietzsche (and Roberta Flack) had it, is to suffer; to survive
is to make sense of the suffering.
That’s why survival is never guaranteed.
OR put it as Kobayashi Issa, a haiku master in the 18th century, did:
“This world of dew is a world of dew,” he wrote in a short poem. “And
yet, and yet. ...” Known for his words of constant affirmation, Issa had
seen his mother die when he was 2, his first son die, his father
contract typhoid fever, his next son and a beloved daughter die.
He knew that suffering was a fact of life, he might have been saying in
his short verse; he knew that impermanence is our home and loss the law
of the world. But how could he not wish, when his 1-year-old daughter
contracted smallpox, and expired, that it be otherwise?
After his poem of reluctant grief, Issa saw another son die and his own
body paralyzed. His wife died, giving birth to another child, and that
child died, maybe because of a careless nurse. He married again and was
separated within weeks. He married a third time and his house was
destroyed by fire. Finally, his third wife bore him a healthy daughter —
but Issa himself died, at 64, before he could see the little girl born.
My friend Richard, one of my closest pals in high school, upon receiving
a diagnosis of prostate cancer three years ago, created a blog called
“This world of dew.” I sent him some information about Issa — whose
poems, till his death, express almost nothing but gratitude for the
beauties of life — but Richard died quickly and in pain, barely able to
walk the last time I saw him.
MY neighbors in Japan live in a culture that is based, at some invisible
level, on the Buddhist precepts that Issa knew: that suffering is
reality, even if unhappiness need not be our response to it. This makes
for what comes across to us as uncomplaining hard work, stoicism and a
constant sense of the ways difficulty binds us together — as Britain
knew during the blitz, and other cultures at moments of stress, though
doubly acute in a culture based on the idea of interdependence, whereby
the suffering of one is the suffering of everyone.
“I’ll do my best!” and “I’ll stick it out!” and “It can’t be helped” are
the phrases you hear every hour in Japan; when a tsunami claimed
thousands of lives north of Tokyo two years ago, I heard much more
lamentation and panic in California than among the people I know around
Kyoto. My neighbors aren’t formal philosophers, but much in the texture
of the lives they’re used to — the national worship of things falling
away in autumn, the blaze of cherry blossoms followed by their very
quick departure, the Issa-like poems on which they’re schooled — speaks
for an old culture’s training in saying goodbye to things and putting
delight and beauty within a frame. Death undoes us less, sometimes, than
the hope that it will never come.
As a boy, I’d learned that it’s the Latin, and maybe a Greek, word for
“suffering” that gives rise to our word “passion.” Etymologically, the
opposite of “suffering” is, therefore, “apathy”; the Passion of the
Christ, say, is a reminder, even a proof, that suffering is something
that a few high souls embrace to try to lessen the pains of others.
Passion with the plight of others makes for “compassion.”
Almost eight months after the Japanese tsunami, I accompanied the Dalai
Lama to a fishing village, Ishinomaki, that had been laid waste by the
natural disaster. Gravestones lay tilted at crazy angles when they had
not collapsed altogether. What once, a year before, had been a thriving
network of schools and homes was now just rubble. Three orphans barely
out of kindergarten stood in their blue school uniforms to greet him,
outside of a temple that had miraculously survived the catastrophe.
Inside the wooden building, by its altar, were dozens of colored boxes
containing the remains of those who had no surviving relatives to claim
them, all lined up perfectly in a row, behind framed photographs, of
young and old.
As the Dalai Lama got out of his car, he saw hundreds of citizens who
had gathered on the street, behind ropes, to greet him. He went over and
asked them how they were doing. Many collapsed into sobs. “Please
change your hearts, be brave,” he said, while holding some and blessing
others. “Please help everyone else and work hard; that is the best
offering you can make to the dead.” When he turned round, however, I saw
him brush away a tear himself.
Then he went into the temple and spoke to the crowds assembled on seats
there. He couldn’t hope to give them anything other than his sympathy
and presence, he said; as soon as he heard about the disaster, he knew
he had to come here, if only to remind the people of Ishinomaki that
they were not alone. He could understand a little of what they were
feeling, he went on, because he, as a young man of 23 in his home in
Lhasa had been told, one afternoon, to leave his homeland that evening,
to try to prevent further fighting between Chinese troops and Tibetans
around his palace.
He left his friends, his home, even one small dog, he said, and had
never in 52 years been back. Two days after his departure, he heard that
his friends were dead. He had tried to see loss as opportunity and to
make many innovations in exile that would have been harder had he still
been in old Tibet; for Buddhists like himself, he pointed out,
inexplicable pains are the result of karma, sometimes incurred in
previous lives, and for those who believe in God, everything is divinely
ordained. And yet, his tear reminded me, we still live in Issa’s world
of “And yet.”
The large Japanese audience listened silently and then turned, insofar
as its members were able, to putting things back together again the next
day. The only thing worse than assuming you could get the better of
suffering, I began to think (though I’m no Buddhist), is imagining you
could do nothing in its wake. And the tear I’d witnessed made me think
that you could be strong enough to witness suffering, and yet human
enough not to pretend to be master of it. Sometimes it’s those things we
least understand that deserve our deepest trust. Isn’t that what love
and wonder tell us, too?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered