|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 22:32:52 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. The thought system obviously exists. I assume what you mean to say is that it is not true, which doesn't mean it can't be understood given that 'thought system'. Of course it can be understood, and it may well be essential for many that it IS understood.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 23, 2012 22:34:21 GMT -5
It's that it's all a lie which we fail to acknowledge=suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2012 22:36:20 GMT -5
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?? Of course it is Enigma, but your personal agenda to explore suffering on an open forum, has been going on for at least 3 years or more!!! Maybe you could ask the moderators for your own forum... >>>Enigma's Greasy Spot-The premier exploration of suffering on the interweb<<< ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 22:42:23 GMT -5
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. 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 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.[/quote] I don't remember you ever asking me about the cause of suffering, you just asked for a definition of suffering. I'm beginning to understand that you see them as the same thing. As for the causes of suffering, I've talked about that many times in many ways. One of those ways was to say that suffering happens in the thoughts ABOUT physical pain or feeling, and not in the pain or feeling itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2012 22:54:40 GMT -5
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. The thought system obviously exists. I assume what you mean to say is that it is not true, which doesn't mean it can't be understood given that 'thought system'. Of course it can be understood, and it may well be essential for many that it IS understood. No the thought system is an illusion, which means that it doesn't exist. Illusions can't be understood they can only be recognized.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 22:56:27 GMT -5
Am I crazy? Am I the only one who thinks suffering is a topic worthy of discussion on a spirituality forum?? Of course it is Enigma, but your personal agenda to explore suffering on an open forum, has been going on for at least 3 years or more!!! Maybe you could ask the moderators for your own forum... >>>Enigma's Greasy Spot-The premier exploration of suffering on the interweb<<< ;D I had no idea it was my own personal agenda, and a matter of only passing interest to others. That would actually explain a lot of the nonsense here. B will recognize the four noble truths as central to Buddhist teachings: 1. Life means suffering. 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering. Buddha seemed to think that suffering was a pretty important topic, though it might have just been his personal agenda.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2012 23:08:58 GMT -5
The thought system obviously exists. I assume what you mean to say is that it is not true, which doesn't mean it can't be understood given that 'thought system'. Of course it can be understood, and it may well be essential for many that it IS understood. No the thought system is an illusion, which means that it doesn't exist. Illusions can't be understood they can only be recognized. Thoughts, true or not, are as real or unreal as the words in your post, which i assume you understand. Thoughts are in the same context as understanding, and so there's no problem in understanding thoughts. I suggest that's all that CAN be understood. There isn't something else to understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2012 23:16:15 GMT -5
Of course it is Enigma, but your personal agenda to explore suffering on an open forum, has been going on for at least 3 years or more!!! Maybe you could ask the moderators for your own forum... >>>Enigma's Greasy Spot-The premier exploration of suffering on the interweb<<< ;D I had no idea it was my own personal agenda, and a matter of only passing interest to others. That would actually explain a lot of the nonsense here. B will recognize the four noble truths as central to Buddhist teachings: 1. Life means suffering. 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering. Buddha seemed to think that suffering was a pretty important topic, though it might have just been his personal agenda. I'm sure the Buddha talked about a lot of things. Apparently he even woke up a disciple up by raising one finger.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Sept 23, 2012 23:39:54 GMT -5
I had no idea it was my own personal agenda, and a matter of only passing interest to others. That would actually explain a lot of the nonsense here. B will recognize the four noble truths as central to Buddhist teachings: 1. Life means suffering. 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering. Buddha seemed to think that suffering was a pretty important topic, though it might have just been his personal agenda. I'm sure the Buddha talked about a lot of things. Apparently he even woke up a disciple up by raising one finger. Which the disciple proceeded to pull, much to the Buddha's surprise and delight at the forthcoming release of intestinal pressure.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2012 0:20:16 GMT -5
I had no idea it was my own personal agenda, and a matter of only passing interest to others. That would actually explain a lot of the nonsense here. B will recognize the four noble truths as central to Buddhist teachings: 1. Life means suffering. 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering. Buddha seemed to think that suffering was a pretty important topic, though it might have just been his personal agenda. I'm sure the Buddha talked about a lot of things. Apparently he even woke up a disciple up by raising one finger. As I said, the four noble truths are central to Buddhist teachings.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 24, 2012 2:26:37 GMT -5
I'm sure the Buddha talked about a lot of things. Apparently he even woke up a disciple up by raising one finger. As I said, the four noble truths are central to Buddhist teachings. Well, that may explain why I never had much interest in traditional Buddhist teachings. Ha ha. The four noble truths were important to the Buddha and central to SOME Buddhist traditions, but during ten years of going to Zen retreats and interacting with a lot of Zen teachers I don't remember the subject of suffering or the four noble truths ever being discussed. Of course, Zen is sort of the black sheep of the Buddhist family because it pokes fun at most of the formal Buddhist teachings. It's attitude is more like "Words suck as a conveyor of truth," and this may be a good example of that. LOL. If a ZM asked me, "What is suffering?" I wouldn't say, "It's a mental overlay." I'd say, "Aaaaaieeee!" The phrase, "Life is suffering" doesn't hold much meaning for me, but in light of this discussion, perhaps I should amend my earlier statement. When I was lying in the hospital bed, there was no one suffering; there was only a body writhing in pain. (smile) The word "suffer" may be one of those abstractions that is useful only when used in an extremely loose way. It reminds me of the quote by some philsospher about the word "time." He wrote, I know exactly what time is until you ask me what it is. ;D Bottom line? I still like E.'s earlier definition--"Suffering is when you feel really really bad and stuff" or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2012 2:55:48 GMT -5
As I said, the four noble truths are central to Buddhist teachings. Well, that may explain why I never had much interest in traditional Buddhist teachings. Ha ha. The four noble truths were important to the Buddha and central to SOME Buddhist traditions, but during ten years of going to Zen retreats and interacting with a lot of Zen teachers I don't remember the subject of suffering or the four noble truths ever being discussed. Of course, Zen is sort of the black sheep of the Buddhist family because it pokes fun at most of the formal Buddhist teachings. It's attitude is more like "Words suck as a conveyor of truth," and this may be a good example of that. LOL. If a ZM asked me, "What is suffering?" I wouldn't say, "It's a mental overlay." I'd say, "Aaaaaieeee!" The phrase, "Life is suffering" doesn't hold much meaning for me, but in light of this discussion, perhaps I should amend my earlier statement. When I was lying in the hospital bed, there was no one suffering; there was only a body writhing in pain. (smile) The word "suffer" may be one of those abstractions that is useful only when used in an extremely loose way. It reminds me of the quote by some philsospher about the word "time." He wrote, I know exactly what time is until you ask me what it is. ;D Bottom line? I still like E.'s earlier definition--"Suffering is when you feel really really bad and stuff" or something like that. Problem is, now we have to argue about that definition for a month. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 24, 2012 7:05:55 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 24, 2012 7:15:25 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? 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. Thanks for running with the analogy (I do so like analogies). Would you suggest that I pull anchor, and venture out into tossing waves, myself, at risk of being tossed, myself? My only response to that I may take the tranquility of the harbor with me. But, I must first remain fast in that tranquility. Otherwise, I can work to extend the harbor, I suppose. In any event, because of the subjective nature of it, those waves aren't real, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 24, 2012 7:25:41 GMT -5
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 don't remember you ever asking me about the cause of suffering, you just asked for a definition of suffering. I'm beginning to understand that you see them as the same thing. As for the causes of suffering, I've talked about that many times in many ways. One of those ways was to say that suffering happens in the thoughts ABOUT physical pain or feeling, and not in the pain or feeling itself. I asked you what your definition was, and you said, "feeling really, really bad and stuff." You did NOT say that it was overlay on top of pain, or anything else. "Feeling really bad", to me, is pain. Hence, I can only get the impression that suffering = pain, to you. And that's fine. It contradicts what you've discussed, earlier, but that's okay, too. Sometimes, we can't put this stuff into words.
|
|