The Meaning of Life and Other Vegetables

Hello.

Since I posted about suffering, I’ve been pondering more about this: How can I find meaning in suffering? The concept felt meaningful (pun not intended…) and “right”, but practically, how do I do that?

Today I read something that triggered additional thoughts, so I decided to put it all in a short (?) post. Like a mountaineer who makes a little upward progress, drives a new anchor into the rock face and ties the rope to it, to secure the progress.

My thinking until today was “There is meaning in suffering because it gives us an opportunity to see how we cope with it, and also a chance to practice new ways of coping.” It’s a chance to examine our assumptions and our values, to practice patience, and more.

Then I realised that this line of thinking might be useful in situations where we have alternatives – choices how to act or respond to the suffering or to its causes. I’m not yet talking about the choice how to perceive or think about the suffering or its causes – that’s advanced… I’m only talking about actual responses, in the real world. Unless the circumstances are extreme, we typically have options; so the suffering is an opportunity to learn how we choose; what we choose; and maybe try out / learn new ways.

But what if the suffering is extreme, extends without apparent end, and we have no apparent way to do much about it (or its causes), in real life? Think for example about a prisoner in a concentration camp, facing unimaginable horrors and loss – like Frankl did. That is the ultimate challenge, and Frankl came out of that experience with the assertion that yes, this kind of suffering – in itself – can give meaning. I was always baffled at that outcome – how could he?…

The text I read today got me thinking in a new way about this mystery. It is from the Vigyan Bhairava, which I introduced here in a previous post. Ranjit Chaudhri comments there on the purpose of the world we perceive, as it stands in contrast with the underlying reality, which is referred to in that text as God. This discussion resonates well with the ideas I’m promoting in this blog – Hoffman’s abstract reality, Spinoza’s God/Universe/Nature/One, the projection into Spacetime / our headset, the lot… But this is not what piqued my interest today. Here is the paragraph:

This theory would also explain why the concept of heaven and hell, as expounded by some religions, would never work. If a person was in hell experiencing never-ending pain, after a while pain would not be pain, it would be nothing. If one continuously experiences pain and nothing else, then after a while pain would lose its meaning. In order to experience pain, one also has to experience its opposite, pleasure. Without its opposite, pain is no longer pain. It becomes nothing. For the same reason, heaven would never work. If you continuously experience pleasure without experiencing any pain, then after a while the experience of pleasure becomes nothing.

In simple words: The meaning of suffering it to allow us to experience and appreciate anything that is the opposite. The more severe the suffering, the longer it lasts, the more hopeless we are about relieving it, or about the prospect of it ever relieving (let alone ending), the more profound the effect. As a relevant illustration, think of a person seeing a colourful butterfly in a concentration camp. There are actually many real examples from poets and other writers who survived the camps, and described that very experience. Most of us wouldn’t even notice a butterfly in everyday life, or at most, would pause for a few seconds and briefly acknowledge its beauty. Then we would, most likely, move on, and forget about it in a few minutes (at best). But among the horrors of the concentration camp, among immense loss and pain, a colourful butterfly might be a miracle, a life-changing experience.

That’s all for now. I might write another post today, continuing the review of Hoffman’s interview.

In the meantime – peace to all.