Yiwen Zheng

Prof. Bronson

HUMA 1165

May 19, 2024

Easing Global Suffering through the Values of Self Awareness, Religious Piety and Love

across Buddhism, Islam and Christianity

The present world is defined by a sense of increased interconnection of societies. One of

the most common concepts that is used in illustrating the wide perspective of interconnection is

the concept of globalization. As a student in a humanity class, one of the most profound

questions that I have encountered in the class was “How does the question of interconnectedness

in globalization lead to differences in class and wealth disparity between the Global South and

North countries?” The question is leading, through its intent in highlighting how the realization

of the interconnections has entrenched different outcomes for communities globally. The

understanding of the difference in human experience will be analyzed through the values that

highlight the source, meaning and relevance of suffering in Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

The discussion will be critical in how each of the values that define these religions understand

suffering and how they instruct their believers to coexist with suffering.

One of the questions that was central in the weekly discussion is the question on suffering

and its significance in life. Buddhist values are based on easing of suffering through compassion,

and has little consideration in understanding the source of suffering. However, from an economic

and philosophical standpoint, the global inequalities are based on the human intention to accrue

wealth at the expense of others. Thinking through these perspectives, It is evident that it is
practically impossible to apply religious reason in understanding some of the secular aspects that

define suffering. The question is subject to different forms based on the values that define

Buddhism, Christianity and Islamic.

I find the Buddhist perspective of suffering to overlook the concepts of globalization by

placing the experience of suffering to coexist with humanity. The Buddhist view of the question

can be changed to “How do disparities in class and wealth between the Global South and North

countries relate to Buddhist teachings on the interconnectedness of all beings and the alleviation

of suffering?” In the class reading on the foundation of Buddhism through the life of Buddha,

suffering was the main event that led to the awakening of the Buddha. “Suffering is at the core of

all birth, life, and death. The Buddha believed that release from suffering comes not from

extinguishing life, but from eradicating our ‘passionate greed’ for pleasures and long life”

(Bronson 36). Reflecting on my new understanding of globalization and the creation of wealth

disparities, I believe that the Buddhist understanding of suffering is spot on. The poverty and

environmental damages in selected regions describe the suffering of societies under the effect of

globalization. The suffering justifies the wealth and the nature of the advanced economies in the

otherwise global north. The connecting factor between these regions is capitalistic intentions.

The powerful tool advantage of others in a bid to make their lives better is an instance of

passionate greed. The Buddhist teachings are clear that the eradication of suffering is through

release from greed. One of the most universal forms of suffering that ultimately caught up with

all societies is the climate crisis. The effects of the climate situation have created catastrophes in

all continents and different societies regardless of their place in the North-south spectrum of

wealth distribution. The Buddhist leads to the introspection of humanity as its author of

increased suffering. My critical perspective is that suffering coexists with humanity. The greed
that facilitated the suffering during the lifetime of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha, is still the same

that has persisted in the increased global connection under globalization. The supposition is that

we cannot rid of the suffering but rather develop a resistance to the innate greed that defines

humanity. Buddhist teachings are introspective by seeking to understand the instinctual nature of

humanity and true it to the experiences of the world. The Buddhist view of suffering due to

increased connections is rooted in the intention that defines globalization. The consideration that

humans struggle with greed implies that the increased suffering is an indication that humanity is

constantly losing in this struggle. The amassing of wealth at the expense of others increases

suffering in the world. Buddhists are objective in making this approach in an attempt to answer

the challenge of globalization, one secular support that the Buddhists' perspective can be applied

is the realization that an increase in wealth creates an equal reaction in the poverty rates that

describe the world. Alternatively, every increase in industrialization produces an equal effect on

the climate crisis. This also reflects the balance between suffering and happiness according to

Buddhism. The concepts of mindfulness encompass an increased awareness of how our patterns

of thinking about life define our lived experiences. Social connectivity should be guided by the

concept of mindfulness in Buddhism. In this way, humanity can constantly be aware of how our

pursuit of a fleeting sense of happiness through greed intensifies our suffering.

The Christian and Islamic understanding of suffering is often perceived as a path towards

a greater goal in life. I find that in both of these religions, suffering is placed as a key events that

enhances the understanding of humanity. For Muslims, the tolerance they develop for suffering

is rooted in the value of piety. Islam values insist on community and awareness of communal

values. The shared belief in building human communities and equality was instrumental in the

achievement of Material success in Islam’s Golden Age. The religious knowledge and
intellectual were passed indiscriminately across humanity. The scholarly contribution of this age

was attributed to the religious teachings of tolerance and virtuous coexistence among the Muslim

society (Bronson 111-112). The ‘coexistence with the Jews and Christian Scholars’ was

instrumental in the advancement of knowledge and the alleviation of suffering that defined the

lives of Muslims at the time of their persecution.

In the Christian teaching of suffering, the experience is tied to a greater course. Similar to

the Buddhist through the insistence on love as a self-cultivated value. One of the critical values

that define this is the supremacy of love. Christians are guided to embody the love of Christ in

their interactions with others. The practice of love seeks to see the good of interacting with

others as God showed his love for the Christians. The story of Incarnate God closely relates to

the understanding of human suffering. From a theological perspective, God became Incarnate for

at least two of three reasons which are “to identify with our suffering and to show and teach us

how to live and encourage us to do so” (Bronson 93). The Incarnate God was thus an instance of

fellowship between God and Human which provides an important foundation on how to coexist

with each other. The difference between God and Humans did not see God shun human

existence, but rather living with Humans and sharing in the suffering. Community and

connection through this teaching was thus an important avenue of building human resilience.

This viewpoint is an answer to the Christian perspective of the question of How economic

disparities due to globalization reflect Christian teachings on social responsibility and the

equitable distribution of resources. The Love of God, motivated by the incarnation of Christ

should guide human connection. In thinking that we have a sacred duty to share in the suffering

of others, then it is least likely that we are likely to support suppressive systems that inflict the

suffering of others.
 In summary, the teachings of humanity and duty to fellow humans, are provided as the

path to alleviating suffering. The religious knowledge communicated across the three religion are

important in easing suffering. However, the secular understanding of suffering insist on humans

as the architect of their own suffering. The discussion highlights the interaction between

religious knowledge in the age of information. However, there os a point fo convergence

between the secular knowledge of current suffering and the religious view. I find that the values

across Buddhism, Islam and Christianity are critical in advising against the sense of self-

importance which is projected to lead to a state of increased human suffering. The value of

community is greatly intertwined with the religion’s values. The need to have a sense of

awareness of how one’s actions impact the experiences of others is a point of convergence

between the three religions highlighted. Therefore, the solution to the increased global suffering

in the wake of increased connectivity is to develop an increased awareness of communal values.

Each person should interrogate how their pursuit of happiness is detrimental to the collective

happiness of humanity. The realization of happiness for all rests on a decreased sense of self-

importance and increased awareness of a sense of community that seeks a greater good for all.
 Work Cited

Bronson, Eric. Enchanted Wisdom : Enduring Ideas of World Religions. Rock’s Mills Press,

2021.