Life is suffering

Beauty is an illusion. When you embrace illusions like beauty you open the path for suffering, one of the ultimate illusions of a human being.

Beauty is beauty and beauty is sublime. It is true that suffering may present itself in a beautiful scene, but even when considered the scene can be beautiful. Beauty is what drives us to the divine. It is the teacher that taught you those lessons.

Beauty is ephemeral and those who desire beauty suffering not only to achieve it, but to hold it, and are ultimately devastated when this beauty vanishes. To exist without desiring beauty is to exist without suffering beauty.

>Beauty is le illusion
Prove it.

Everyone in this thread has been speaking in vague generalities to make themselves look smart. Literally more bullshit than I've seen in a postmodernist writing.

>sublime

We need to suffer to see outside of ourselves and notice the suffering in the world.

Ok, so life is suffering, but sometimes that suffering is also beautiful?

Assuming you're OP, I think your worldview is actually horrifying an immoral. Suffering is everywhere, you're just choosing to see it as beautiful (or wired to see it as beautiful). That's the logic that murderers and warlords use. You've reacted to suffering by training yourself to yearn for it. You've acquired a taste for it.

OP here, that's not me. Suffering and beauty are mutually exclusive and objective.

I don't mean to say that we should inflict suffering or that suffering is always beautiful. In the correct context and directed toward the right end, it connects us to one another and teaches us love.

Right on. Any thoughts on my original comment ?

Gotcha. In pic related, though, the whole point of that act was to conquer sin, which is the source of suffering. It's not that the suffering was beautiful, it was that by all human standards the abasement to and redemption of that suffering should have been impossible.

The suffering by itself isn't beautiful, but in context it is. You have to view the scene holistically, in view if the meaning of the act and in view of the meaning of man's condition.

this so fucking much
OP is a fag

There is no buddhist doctrine that "life is suffering", it's that life includes dukkha.

>The existence of suffering does not imply that the entirety of life is suffering.
That's exactly what Buddhism teaches. Please educate yourself at least the smallest amount before making sweeping statements.

People that despise suffering should be burnt alive.

I thin you may be failing to grasp the mystery of the crucifixion and resurrection.

You and Buddha are wrong. Minimizing your desires might have worked three thousand years ago but all you are doing is making your life dull in order to achieve it. Take risks, don't be afraid if you don't always get what you want. Better to live and try then cut it all out completely.

Life is suffering. There is also no joy without suffering, which is why Buddhism is nihilistic.

He's buddahposting you absolute moron

The doctrines are for the busied and unimaginative.

>t. coddled little white boy baby raised on video games and an allowance from his suburban middle class dad.

I'm sure you never even had a pet you loved, or anything else you loved, for that matter, to have experienced nothing of life in your short, imbecilic life.

And yet you know it all, of course.

What is it then?

Life is not suffering.

But it is a catastrophe.

That makes is worse.

>I'm sure you never even had a pet you loved, or anything else you loved, for that matter, to have experienced nothing of life in your short, imbecilic life.
Wouldn't life be suffering under those conditions, however?
To have never felt love towards anything in the world makes existence itself unlovable

>little white boy
What do you have against white people, racist?

Well, it's certainly not right to say that life is /solely/ composed of suffering. But look, I have a higher standard of living in material terms than the most revered royalty 200 years ago, and yet my life consists rather more of worries and discomforts and painful doubts than it does of pleasure, let alone true joy (taking W.H. Davies' distinction between pleasure and joy). But all that means is that we rule out pleasure as a legitimate end for one's life--if we allow summing up the suffering and the happiness of our entire life as a legitimate calculation, of which I am more than a little dubious. The Buddha's solution to this "problem" may be effective (I haven't looked very deeply into it), but frankly life would appear to be quite dull if we prevent ourselves from exercising our wills within it, so for my own part I'd rather find another way, which simply dispenses with the idea that pleasure or indeed happiness is the highest goal. And certainly something like Christianity or Islam (at least the historically dominant varieties) won't do, since all that really is is a particularly insidious and rapacious form of hedonism, which rejoices in the thought of you and your privy cohort getting all the pleasure forever, and everyone else suffering nasty things.

So that my personal inclination is twofold: I think there's something to be said for the Homeric attitude, which says that kλέος among men is the closest thing to immortality of which we can have any knowledge, and I am also partial to a saying of Yeats, that "There exists another world, but it is within this one," and I'd elaborate further that that world exists within the great works of men, poetry most of all, but also the other arts, and, if the experts may be trusted, mathematics too. And this other, interior world, I'd contend, is not merely superior to the outside one in terms of pleasure, but also insofar as comprehending or entering it may bring you, even for an instant, closer to the state of the Aristotelian God, knowing nothing but perfect self-contemplation. I would say that a second of that sort of supreme aesthetic experience would be worth 1000 years of drudgery. And indeed, so-called religious experiences can probably all be analyzed as misunderstood (or simply too-narrowly-understood) instances of that sort of experience.

>tfw a masochist so life being filled with "pleasure and suffering" just means "pleasure and pleasure"
>tfw the only thing I loathe is denial with no release, death being the longest of them all

I shall enjoy the little time I have left, and pray there is a hell waiting for me.

You should read the texts and see what it actually means. It has nothing to do with extreme ascetism, more like detachment and acting from true inclinatiom instead of vauge and chaotic impulses.

You're going to die. Everyone you know is going to die. You're most likely not always going to be as healthy and full of energy as you are now. You may get ill. You'll get attached to people and then be separated from them. You'll have to be around people you dislike. Also, see . You're viewing this saying ("Life is dukkha") in a crude sense, because of the associations you have in your mind with the not quite perfect word you translated it to --- "suffering".

Moreover, the phrase does not imply that the entirety of life is outright emotional and/or physical suffering. This outright pain is what is called dukkha-dukkha. The point is that you can have pleasant experiences, but then you will precisely suffer from NOT having these pleasant experiences later, from missing them or having to let go of them.