|
Post by Beingist on Sept 23, 2012 14:01:51 GMT -5
Allright, let's get this on the table.
What is 'suffering', already?
Is it the Buddhist type of suffering--dukkha--that includes conditional states of mind and change? Or is it, as E. has suggested, 'feeling really, really bad and stuff"? Is there an objective, universal suffering, or is it strictly a subjective thing?
I pose this question, because it seems that the communications around here on the topic seem to go nowhere, while in the meantime, threads are being hijacked by the topic.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2012 14:32:44 GMT -5
"Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!":
Comes now Beingist and presents, by way of the allegations stated herein, a claim to the word "suffering".
(just kiddin' B ;D)
To attempt to get serious for the rest of the post B, what's wrong with letting posters define the term contextually in the course of their threads?
(... ahh shucks ... that didn't last too long ...)
I mean, it's so much fun watching the fireworks when people go round and round on definitions like this ... and you'd be depriving enigma of one of his favorite methods ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2012 15:42:15 GMT -5
Allright, let's get this on the table. What is 'suffering', already? Is it the Buddhist type of suffering--dukkha--that includes conditional states of mind and change? Or is it, as E. has suggested, 'feeling really, really bad and stuff"? Is there an objective, universal suffering, or is it strictly a subjective thing? I pose this question, because it seems that the communications around here on the topic seem to go nowhere, while in the meantime, threads are being hijacked by the topic. I usually don't talk much about suffering because I don't really think that it can be understood. But since I found out that this forum is mandated to the exploration of suffering I'll give you my 2 cents. From the point of view of being-ness, suffering or anything else related to the egoic mind is not understandable because it makes no sense, it's actually absurd. But that also doesn't mean that I can't look at how the egoic mind functions. Not by endlessly analyzing it, but by recognizing and transcending what it represents. Which is a decision to separate myself from the being-ness. And that's all I need to understand about suffering. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 23, 2012 15:53:33 GMT -5
Allright, let's get this on the table. What is 'suffering', already? Is it the Buddhist type of suffering--dukkha--that includes conditional states of mind and change? Or is it, as E. has suggested, 'feeling really, really bad and stuff"? Is there an objective, universal suffering, or is it strictly a subjective thing? I pose this question, because it seems that the communications around here on the topic seem to go nowhere, while in the meantime, threads are being hijacked by the topic. I usually don't talk much about suffering because I don't really think that it can be understood. But since I found out that this forum is mandated to the exploration of suffering I'll give you my 2 cents. From the point of view of being-ness, suffering or anything else related to the egoic mind is not understandable because it makes no sense, it's actually absurd. But that also doesn't mean that I can't look at how the egoic mind functions. Not by endlessly analyzing it, but by recognizing and transcending what it represents. Which is a decision to separate myself from the being-ness. And that's all I need to understand about suffering. ;D Great point, trf. Which is really the reason, I guess, for the thread. As long as I stay in the 'sense I am'; as long as I am aware of 'what is'; as long as I harbor in Peace, I just don't worry about suffering, or, its definitions, subjective, or objective. But, lots of folks around these here parts seem to think it's really important to talk about, and so I'm asking--what's it all about? What's the big deal? I mean, what's all these folks even talking about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2012 17:00:48 GMT -5
I usually don't talk much about suffering because I don't really think that it can be understood. But since I found out that this forum is mandated to the exploration of suffering I'll give you my 2 cents. From the point of view of being-ness, suffering or anything else related to the egoic mind is not understandable because it makes no sense, it's actually absurd. But that also doesn't mean that I can't look at how the egoic mind functions. Not by endlessly analyzing it, but by recognizing and transcending what it represents. Which is a decision to separate myself from the being-ness. And that's all I need to understand about suffering. ;D Great point, trf. Which is really the reason, I guess, for the thread. As long as I stay in the 'sense I am'; as long as I am aware of 'what is'; as long as I harbor in Peace, I just don't worry about suffering, or, its definitions, subjective, or objective. But, lots of folks around these here parts seem to think it's really important to talk about, and so I'm asking--what's it all about? What's the big deal? I mean, what's all these folks even talking about? Yeah, you don't sound like a very good participant for Enigma's, I mean the forums exploration of suffering agenda. ;D
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 23, 2012 17:19:07 GMT -5
Ok, I'll chime in too. I guess I'm one of the ones you're referring to, B, that thinks talking about the ways we suffer is important.
trf - you said
How did you come to see it as absurd? What does "from the point of beingness" mean to you and how are you able to view 'the egoic mind' from that vantage? Did you suddenly 'see' that absurdity - like with some sort of grace? And did it topple all your delusions and beliefs - in one fell swoop?
The reason I'm asking is because for me, the absurdity wasn't so clear until I started paying attention to the suffering thoughts. Looking at their nature, at how they're created and what they're 'made of'. That's when I see the absurdity for myself (not based on something I heard or read).
Beingist - you said
If suffering still comes up, it feels a bit like denial to me to "stay in the sense I am". Not saying you're in denial, only that it would feel like that to me. If desires and fears and suffering are here, I figure there here to show me something.
I think most people come to the table with a lot of scrambled up thinking. If it's there, we can either say "ok, let's take a look" or we can say "find the you that sees the thoughts". They're both valid, it's true. But the first one addresses where the person is - right now.
Can it turn into a merry-go-round that's going nowhere? Sure. Does it always? Not in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 23, 2012 17:29:10 GMT -5
Beingist - you said If suffering still comes up, it feels a bit like denial to me to "stay in the sense I am". Not saying you're in denial, only that it would feel like that to me. If desires and fears and suffering are here, I figure there here to show me something. I never said that suffering still comes up in my experience. Pain, yes. Suffering, no. At least not by my understanding of suffering (which, btw, is really along the lines of too much thinking). Eckhart Tolle wrote about the pain body, and I still resonate with that. But, he didn't call it the 'suffering body'. Also, I don't resonate with E.'s definition of 'feeling really, really bad and stuff'. To me, that's pain, not suffering, which is why I asked the question of him in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 23, 2012 17:53:09 GMT -5
I never said that suffering still comes up in my experience. Pain, yes. Suffering, no. At least not by my understanding of suffering (which, btw, is really along the lines of too much thinking). Oh, ok. So if suffering is TMT, then if it came up you would immediately recognize that and it would dissipate? Or what? I know that's getting off the subject of just defining suffering, but I'm curious. I get the impression he was saying suffering is mind's overlay on top of pain. Beyond that, no one seems to want to give it any firm definition. Me either. ;D Tolle's pain-body is a whole other interesting subject. I spent a lot of time a few years ago letting big emotions wash over me. If there was a video camera in here, I would have been committed. It did seem to open things up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2012 18:02:55 GMT -5
trf - you said How did you come to see it as absurd? Like I said it's a recognition of how the egoic mind functions. Suffering makes no sense because suffering upholds a thought system that does not exist. That is what I mean by saying suffering can't be understood.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 23, 2012 18:06:04 GMT -5
I never said that suffering still comes up in my experience. Pain, yes. Suffering, no. At least not by my understanding of suffering (which, btw, is really along the lines of too much thinking). Oh, ok. So if suffering is TMT, then if it came up you would immediately recognize that and it would dissipate? Or what? I know that's getting off the subject of just defining suffering, but I'm curious. I really don't know, tbh. Please bear in mind that I said, " along the lines of too much thinking", not that suffering IS TMT. Well, yes, I've long had the impression that suffering was mind's "overlay on top of pain," myself. But E. didn't relate that, when asked directly, so I can't resonate. I can relate, I assure you.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 21:53:21 GMT -5
Allright, let's get this on the table. What is 'suffering', already? Is it the Buddhist type of suffering--dukkha--that includes conditional states of mind and change? Or is it, as E. has suggested, 'feeling really, really bad and stuff"? Is there an objective, universal suffering, or is it strictly a subjective thing? I pose this question, because it seems that the communications around here on the topic seem to go nowhere, while in the meantime, threads are being hijacked by the topic. I usually don't talk much about suffering because I don't really think that it can be understood. From the point of view of being-ness, suffering or anything else related to the egoic mind is not understandable because it makes no sense, it's actually absurd. But that also doesn't mean that I can't look at how the egoic mind functions. Not by endlessly analyzing it, but by recognizing and transcending what it represents. Which is a decision to separate myself from the being-ness. And that's all I need to understand about suffering. ;D Why in the world would suffering not be understandable? Is it some kind of transcendent, non-conceptual truth? Say what?? All that was said is that this forum wouldn't exist if not for suffering. What is religion and spirituality about if not the avoidance or transcendence of suffering. Virtually everything every human has done since he crawled out of the trees has been in some way focused on feeling better and avoiding suffering. You talk about suffering like it's essentially irrelevant. Again, it leaves me with the impression that peeps are actively trying to avoid the issue.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 22:03:47 GMT -5
I usually don't talk much about suffering because I don't really think that it can be understood. But since I found out that this forum is mandated to the exploration of suffering I'll give you my 2 cents. From the point of view of being-ness, suffering or anything else related to the egoic mind is not understandable because it makes no sense, it's actually absurd. But that also doesn't mean that I can't look at how the egoic mind functions. Not by endlessly analyzing it, but by recognizing and transcending what it represents. Which is a decision to separate myself from the being-ness. And that's all I need to understand about suffering. ;D Great point, trf. Which is really the reason, I guess, for the thread. As long as I stay in the 'sense I am'; as long as I am aware of 'what is'; as long as I harbor in Peace, I just don't worry about suffering, or, its definitions, subjective, or objective. But, lots of folks around these here parts seem to think it's really important to talk about, and so I'm asking--what's it all about? What's the big deal? I mean, what's all these folks even talking about? Suffering?....What suffering?..... Okay, my BS detector is going crazy here. Even if you have transcended suffering by parking your Peace yacht in the harbor for the night, surely you know there are fishing boats out there being tossed around in the waves and may not last till Midnight, so why would you ask 'What's it all about" What's the big deal?' Seems like it's a big deal to all those fishermen who won't be coming home.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 22:06:49 GMT -5
Great point, trf. Which is really the reason, I guess, for the thread. As long as I stay in the 'sense I am'; as long as I am aware of 'what is'; as long as I harbor in Peace, I just don't worry about suffering, or, its definitions, subjective, or objective. But, lots of folks around these here parts seem to think it's really important to talk about, and so I'm asking--what's it all about? What's the big deal? I mean, what's all these folks even talking about? Yeah, you don't sound like a very good participant for Enigma's, I mean the forums exploration of suffering agenda. ;D Am I crazy? Am I the only one who thinks suffering is a topic worthy of discussion on a spirituality forum??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 22:15:56 GMT -5
Ok, I'll chime in too. I guess I'm one of the ones you're referring to, B, that thinks talking about the ways we suffer is important. trf - you said How did you come to see it as absurd? What does "from the point of beingness" mean to you and how are you able to view 'the egoic mind' from that vantage? Did you suddenly 'see' that absurdity - like with some sort of grace? And did it topple all your delusions and beliefs - in one fell swoop? The reason I'm asking is because for me, the absurdity wasn't so clear until I started paying attention to the suffering thoughts. Looking at their nature, at how they're created and what they're 'made of'. That's when I see the absurdity for myself (not based on something I heard or read). Beingist - you said If suffering still comes up, it feels a bit like denial to me to "stay in the sense I am". Not saying you're in denial, only that it would feel like that to me. If desires and fears and suffering are here, I figure there here to show me something. I think most people come to the table with a lot of scrambled up thinking. If it's there, we can either say "ok, let's take a look" or we can say "find the you that sees the thoughts". They're both valid, it's true. But the first one addresses where the person is - right now. Can it turn into a merry-go-round that's going nowhere? Sure. Does it always? Not in my experience. At the risk of putting words in your mouth, it looks to me like your BS detector went off too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 22:25:10 GMT -5
Beingist - you said If suffering still comes up, it feels a bit like denial to me to "stay in the sense I am". Not saying you're in denial, only that it would feel like that to me. If desires and fears and suffering are here, I figure there here to show me something. I never said that suffering still comes up in my experience. Pain, yes. Suffering, no. At least not by my understanding of suffering (which, btw, is really along the lines of too much thinking). Eckhart Tolle wrote about the pain body, and I still resonate with that. But, he didn't call it the 'suffering body'. Also, I don't resonate with E.'s definition of 'feeling really, really bad and stuff'. To me, that's pain, not suffering, which is why I asked the question of him in the first place. I spose I should ask you what your definition is, but I suspect you'll point me to that Buddhist stuff again. "Along the lines of thinking too much " refers to a cause of suffering, as does the Buddhist stuff, but doesn't define suffering. What is suffering?
|
|