Odd question re: suffering

[Adam]

I was working on a blog post, one that I hope to be a masterpiece, when I got hung up on a deep philosophical question...

I remember a story of a person who was in a concentration camp during WWII, who found inner peace despite a complete lack of liberty and atrocious living conditions... I was writing that liberty greatly helps people to find peace, even though it isn't a requirement, but as I was thinking, I just couldn't think of a single person who had found inner peace who hasn't been through a deeply traumatic experience.

For a few minutes, I couldn't get pictures of the Holocaust out of my mind, so I entered a meditation and quested out for a soul who had been through it. I found a young girl, who appeared to be 8 years old, though it was obvious that she had the perspective of those who have crossed beyond the veil... I asked her why she went through it all, and why so many other people went through that horror as well.

Her answer was "experience." It was so that she could experience it, and so that other people would know about it.

Well, now my foundation is shaken to its roots. My purpose is to bring peace to everybody, but now I am recognizing that you can not add joy to a mountain of joy; the excess would simply slide away without making any noticeable impact. You can, however, fill a pit of suffering with joy, and make a profound impact.

That isn't what I want to do, though. If suffering is necessary to find peace, then why can't I be ignorant of both? I have suffered enough, always in the hope that I can prevent that suffering from falling onto someone else's lap, but am I also robbing them the opportunity for peace? Why can't peace and suffering be separated? Why can't I simply add to the peace of the world, without wrestling with duality and precession?

Why is learning to love so painful?

[yossarian]

some ideas:

1) If one wishes to serve others the proper course of action is to serve his exact wants and needs. If you are unwilling or unable to serve those exact needs, then you must remain aloof.

2) One can serve everyone by providing them with stimulus which can then create a desire to seek spiritually. This is a universal need even if people don't consiously realise it.

3) The "correct" (for our purposes) course of action is that which naturally follows when you are in a state of loving the other person. So the "correct" expression is that which you naturally tend to while feeling love for them. I imagine this could manifest in a variety of ways - but I don't think you can really predict how until you're in the moment.

And so essentially the cultivation of that love is itself the loving action, because once that love is achieved, the "correct" action will naturally ensue without any "struggle".

My understanding is that it's impossible rob someone of their catalyst. You can help them work through it if they are receptive to help, you can entice them into seeking by showing them your example or other methods, but ultimately they will work out their catalyst on their own in their own unique way. If you save someone from the Holocaust, they would later find themselves in a situation that produced similar sensations in themselves and so the catalytic process would not be lost and can never be lost.

Rather, they would gain from the encounter of being saved in other ways, not least of which is just knowing you and witnessing your deeds.

I've considered this issue a lot and these are sort of the "best answers" i've come up with.

One interesting example relating to this is the movie V for Vendetta. V puts Natalie Portman through torture, with the goal being to give her catalyst that would help her progress in her spiritual development. It does indeed help her, but does that justify the torture? I think this is a very difficult question that cannot be solved ahead of time, but rather the correct answer will naturally appear at the moment if V has cultivated the neccessary love for the Natalie Portman character.

It's hard to judge his behaviour (where you judge by putting yourself in his shoes) but I do think that the "correctness" of his action essentially depends on his state of mind at the time of making it, as a positive (loving) state of mind would indicate that he was serving her as she wished to be served, even if unconsiously.

I guess you could sum up my opinion with the phrase, "Always let your conscience be your guide."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Adam

but as I was thinking, I just couldn't think of a single person who had found inner peace who hasn't been through a deeply traumatic experience.

Siddhartha Gautama. (Buddha).

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Adam

That isn't what I want to do, though. If suffering is necessary to find peace, then why can't I be ignorant of both? I have suffered enough, always in the hope that I can prevent that suffering from falling onto someone else's lap, but am I also robbing them the opportunity for peace? Why can't peace and suffering be separated? Why can't I simply add to the peace of the world, without wrestling with duality and precession?

There is a verse in the Bible spoken by Jesus:

"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him through whom they come!"

It is understandable that:

1. Without suffering, no one would have a need for peace. Suffering is the affliction for which peace is the cure; without the affliction, there is no need for the cure.
2. You cannot prevent suffering from coming, but it need not come through you.
3. There is already suffering and people who are suffering - it is the ones who are suffering who need the peace you want to impart and not the people who already have peace.

If a person is not suffering and has not suffered, due to that fact, they may not take your guidance. After they have suffered, however, they might reach a point where they will want peace and be open to receiving your guidance to avoid further suffering.

[purplepower]

I hope this doesn't sound offensive - I don't mean it to be, but I find that I have very little in common with (and sometimes, I confess, very little time for) people who have not "suffered" on some level. And I am not talking just of suffering on a grand scale. Suffering is the Holocaust of course and all the repeating atrocities of this world but suffering can also be very quiet, very personal and very individual.

That is not to necessarily make suffering a positive or desirable thing, but simply that people who have not suffered in some sense, seem two dimensional, "unfinished"(?) Which is not to say at all that I think suffering necessarily improves people but it CHANGES them in a way that resonates only with others who have suffered.

[Adam]

Thank you, everyone. You have put my mind at ease.

Here's what I get from it...

The cycles of suffering and peace are a tempering process for the soul, just as heating and cooling metal makes it stronger. Each time a person goes through a cycle, suffering gets worse, and the peace that follows is more extreme. In smithing, if the metal is heated too much before it is ready, it will melt, just as people commit suicide to escape from their own suffering. If the metal isn't cooled with proper care, it becomes brittle and is easy to shatter, so too are people. If we do not receive peace the proper way, we become embittered and cruel.

It is pointless, even counter-productive, to cause any suffering. People will create their own suffering just by having egos. Bringing peace, though, is highly productive. It will not prevent suffering, but it will help those who have suffered.

I also realize that the work of bringing peace is eternal, and in a way, I'm glad. I already knew that my purpose would take longer than just my lifetime to accomplish, but peace is found in the work, not the product. This just increases the amount of work, and the opportunity for more peace.

[Dharma]

Why can't peace and suffering be separated? Why can't I simply add to the peace of the world, without wrestling with duality and precession?

If in your belief system, suffering and peace are opposite, then you will have oscillating experiences of both. If you remove the denial of polarity from them, you are left with two separate things:

1) the experience of peace
2) the experience of suffereing

and your choice in the moment of which one you experience.

[JHL]

I remember a story of a person who was in a concentration camp during WWII, who found inner peace despite a complete lack of liberty and atrocious living conditions...

Not sure if this was the person you were thinking of but Viktor Frankl wrote a book on the topic called Mans Search for Meaning. Its an absolutely remarkable book.

If you havent already read it, I think you might like it very much. It discusses the question you raise very intelligently and thoughtfully. It will not leave you untouched!