Reading the introduction to Buddhism, some of the linguistics counter my understanding of certain subjects. Particularly the definition of the Truth of Suffering differs from what I would call suffering. In this definition suffering is defined as unpleasantness and dis-ease. The text also uses physical example to explain this definition, but the linguistics used to define suffering here undermine the potent and value of the word "suffering." Objects such as pain, grief, sorrow, lamentation, despair obviously are not pleasurable for most people, but instead are discomforting and undesired. But to call these objects suffering does injustice to the word "suffering." To me, suffering some unavoidable severe pain that strips the humanity from us. Not the Kantian humanity, but humanity as in the self-worth, value and respect for each other as humans. Suffering is the ultimate kind of despair, or the worst pain. To label and define suffering as displeasure, removes the importance of the pains of everyday life. The use of pain lies in the existence of it as the opposition pleasure and happiness. Without pain there is no pleasure. How dule would life be without any pain or pleasure? Who would we be without these essential aspects of life? Perhaps that would cause suffering. I agree however the revision of the Truth of Suffering as more of a Truth of Unsatisfactoriness rather than suffering. This reflects the adaption that humans undergo, since something that was once pleasurable becomes routinely or boring and no longer contributes to pleasure.
top of page
bottom of page