In What Sense Is Life Suffering?
Deep Dives
Explore related topics with these Wikipedia articles, rewritten for enjoyable reading:
-
Four Noble Truths
13 min read
The article opens with 'Life is suffering' as a Noble Truth and discusses Buddhist concepts of suffering extensively. Understanding the full framework of the Four Noble Truths provides essential context for the philosophical argument being made about the nature of suffering and nirvana.
-
Absolute zero
14 min read
The article's central analogy compares mental valence to temperature, specifically using absolute zero as a parallel to nirvana. Understanding the physics of absolute zero - why it represents true zero heat rather than 'room temperature' - illuminates the Buddhist claim that nirvana is true zero suffering.
-
Dhyana in Buddhism
12 min read
The article discusses jhana as a meditative state 'better than sex or heroin' that serves as a stepping stone to nirvana. Understanding the specific stages and characteristics of jhana states in Buddhist meditation practice provides deeper context for the claims about consciousness and bliss.
“Life is suffering” may be a Noble Truth, but it feels like a deepity. Yes, obviously life includes suffering. But it also includes happiness. Many people live good and happy lives, and even people with hard lives experience some pleasant moments.
This is the starting point of many people’s objection to Buddhism. They continue: if nirvana is just a peaceful state beyond joy or suffering, it sounds like a letdown. An endless gray mist of bare okayness, like death or Britain. If your life was previously good, it’s a step down. Even if your life sucked, maybe you would still prefer the heroism of high highs and low lows to eternal blah.
Against all this, many Buddhists claim to be able to reach jhana, a state described as better than sex or heroin - and they say nirvana is even better than that. Partly it’s better because jhana is temporary and nirvana permanent, but it’s also better on a moment-to-moment basis. So nirvana must mean something beyond bare okayness. But then why the endless insistence that life is suffering and the best you can do is make it stop?
I don’t know the orthodox Buddhist answer to this question. But I got the rationalist techno-Buddhists’ answer from lsusr a few months ago, and found it, uh, enlightening. He said: mental valence works like temperature.
Naively, there are two kinds of temperature: hot and cold. When an environment stops being hot, then it’s neutral - “room temperature” - neither hot nor cold. After that, you can add arbitrary amounts of coldness, making it colder and colder.
But scientifically, there’s only one kind of temperature: heat. Apparent “neutral” at room temperature is a fact about human perception with no objective significance. If you start at “very hot” and take away heat, at some point your perception switches from “less hot” to “more cold”, but you’ve just been taking away heat the whole time. The real “zero heat” isn’t room temperature. It’s absolute zero, which feels colder than we can possibly imagine.
In the same way, naively, there are two kinds of emotion - joy and suffering. When a situation stops being bad, then it’s neutral - “just okay” - neither joy nor suffering. After that, you can add arbitrary amounts of joy, making yourself happier and happier.
But scientifically (according to the Buddhists) there’s only one kind of ...
This excerpt is provided for preview purposes. Full article content is available on the original publication.