|
Post by enigma on Feb 4, 2018 16:16:35 GMT -5
At the root of intense physical pain that results in suffering, is also a set of thoughts. So a baby who hasn't yet developed complex sets of thoughts, and is experiencing intense physical pain, isn't suffering by your definition? No. Suffering requires a sufferer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 17:00:52 GMT -5
I didn't mean to suggest that you did. I'm saying Reefs sees physical feeling as purely physical and therefore not amenable to changes in mind the way emotions are. Or so it seems to me. I see. I was speaking about how children - even before knowing how to string words together to form a thought - can experience harsh or unkind words - unloving and impatient words - abusive words - with a physiological reaction/sensation - usually in the pit of the stomach. I suspect it is fear based in some way, and that itself being an instinctive reaction, needing no thought to produce a defensive reaction. Harshness is experienced as a vibration through the whole body. Like a ripple through it's field.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 5, 2018 19:41:00 GMT -5
I see. I was speaking about how children - even before knowing how to string words together to form a thought - can experience harsh or unkind words - unloving and impatient words - abusive words - with a physiological reaction/sensation - usually in the pit of the stomach. I suspect it is fear based in some way, and that itself being an instinctive reaction, needing no thought to produce a defensive reaction. As I see it, children immediately start making associations between discomfort and what precedes discomfort. This can include soiling diapers and harsh sounds. The child doesn't need to think, as we would normally define it, in order to respond in fear, or even delight if the association is a pleasurable one. Having said that, the child seems to be born with what I call certain propensities, and this might be what you refer to as instinct. It might be true that there's an inborn fear reaction to harsh noises. No disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2018 16:41:08 GMT -5
So a baby who hasn't yet developed complex sets of thoughts, and is experiencing intense physical pain, isn't suffering by your definition? No. Suffering requires a sufferer. I hope you didn't have kids then....
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2018 16:42:55 GMT -5
I see. I was speaking about how children - even before knowing how to string words together to form a thought - can experience harsh or unkind words - unloving and impatient words - abusive words - with a physiological reaction/sensation - usually in the pit of the stomach. I suspect it is fear based in some way, and that itself being an instinctive reaction, needing no thought to produce a defensive reaction. Harshness is experienced as a vibration through the whole body. Like a ripple through it's field. Yes, but starting in the "stomach" (solar plexus).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 17:10:49 GMT -5
Harshness is experienced as a vibration through the whole body. Like a ripple through it's field. Yes, but starting in the "stomach" (solar plexus). No.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2018 20:07:03 GMT -5
No. Suffering requires a sufferer. I hope you didn't have kids then.... It's only when one reverses the process of suffering that it can be noticed that pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering. That structure is critical, and the infant doesn't have it. That structure begins to form around age two.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 6, 2018 22:33:07 GMT -5
That's what I find questionable because at the basis of emotional pain is a bogus thought/belief. And so you have LOA working against you there. Relaxing into grief sounds absurd. Physical pain is different. Yeah, relaxing into grief is, at the very least, an unclear way to talk about releasing the struggle. I also would not liken emotional and physical pain, but they do have a thought generated feeling component in common. Ideally, physical pain is sensation only, the function of which is to alert the mind to a danger affecting the body. As such, it need not cause suffering. The suffering is the result of what mind does with that sensation, and when mind stops doing that, there is sensation only. The tricky part, of course, is how to get mind to stop turning sensation into suffering. Surrender and acceptance point to the correct states but don't offer a means of getting there. To me, a high degree of consciousness is required: The unconscious fears and motivations and mind games must cease. As a part of that, one must also be able to take up a position as observer of mind rather than be caught up in the movement of mind as though one is only that movement. IOW, one must be positioned where they are and not where they think they are. Some clarity will be required in the form of realization. Yes, the extra emotional layer is optional. However, thoughts turn to things eventually. One such manifestation is emotional pain which - if not soothed - does turn into physical pain eventually. So there the topic of physical pain and its roots gets a little convoluted. That's why I clarified earlier that by physical pain I mean things like stubbing your toe and not feeling sick to your stomach because someone was directing some harsh words into your direction. The point I am making is that different degrees of emotional pain just indicate different degrees of (perceived) PPEW* which can only happen when we look at things from a perspective of separation which is based on a bogus belief. From a perspective of alignment, emotional pain has no basis and therefore doesn't arise. Physical pain, however, can still be felt. That's why I say emotional pain and physical pain are different. It's basically the same point U.G. has been making. *pure positive energy withdrawal
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 6, 2018 22:48:34 GMT -5
I hope you didn't have kids then.... It's only when one reverses the process of suffering that it can be noticed that pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering. That structure is critical, and the infant doesn't have it. That structure begins to form around age two. It's not that simple in actuality. I would agree that babies come very close to that ideal. But babies also do have needs. And there have been some (rather sick) experiments with babies in the past that would prove you wrong. Babies can and do suffer. But they are not willing to put up with it at all or endure it for long. And I think that's the actual difference between the baby and the adult here (and also the difference between the animals in the wild and humans). But just in case, what is your definition of suffering? My definition of suffering would be an acute awareness of a feeling of separation.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2018 5:12:07 GMT -5
I hope you didn't have kids then.... It's only when one reverses the process of suffering that it can be noticed that pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering. That structure is critical, and the infant doesn't have it. That structure begins to form around age two. If it was the case that pain is just sensation, the baby would be no different to an AI bot. A baby does have a primitive ego, a basic and unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. Hence why, when a baby is suffering, we are moved to provide comfort if we can.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 7, 2018 6:08:54 GMT -5
It's only when one reverses the process of suffering that it can be noticed that pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering. That structure is critical, and the infant doesn't have it. That structure begins to form around age two. If it was the case that pain is just sensation, the baby would be no different to an AI bot. A baby does have a primitive ego, a basis and unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. Hence why, when a baby is suffering, we are moved to provide comfort if we can. I can't believe that E has been speaking of what constitutes attachment and conditioning . Couldn't get a word out of him before lol, now it's rolling off the tongue ..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2018 7:30:30 GMT -5
If it was the case that pain is just sensation, the baby would be no different to an AI bot. A baby does have a primitive ego, a basis and unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. Hence why, when a baby is suffering, we are moved to provide comfort if we can. I can't believe that E has been speaking of what constitutes attachment and conditioning . Couldn't get a word out of him before lol, now it's rolling off the tongue ..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2018 9:21:45 GMT -5
It's only when one reverses the process of suffering that it can be noticed that pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering. That structure is critical, and the infant doesn't have it. That structure begins to form around age two. It's not that simple in actuality. I would agree that babies come very close to that ideal. But babies also do have needs. And there have been some (rather sick) experiments with babies in the past that would prove you wrong. Babies can and do suffer. But they are not willing to put up with it at all or endure it for long. And I think that's the actual difference between the baby and the adult here (and also the difference between the animals in the wild and humans). But just in case, what is your definition of suffering? My definition of suffering would be an acute awareness of a feeling of separation. Yes. True self exists from birth (and before), and can suffer. Suffering before 2 actually malforms the cultural self (conditioned self). Thus can arise rather nasty people.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 7, 2018 13:00:36 GMT -5
It's not that simple in actuality. I would agree that babies come very close to that ideal. But babies also do have needs. And there have been some (rather sick) experiments with babies in the past that would prove you wrong. Babies can and do suffer. But they are not willing to put up with it at all or endure it for long. And I think that's the actual difference between the baby and the adult here (and also the difference between the animals in the wild and humans). But just in case, what is your definition of suffering? My definition of suffering would be an acute awareness of a feeling of separation. Yes. True self exists from birth (and before), and can suffer. Suffering before 2 actually malforms the cultural self (conditioned self). Thus can arise rather nasty people. The true self (Inner Being) doesn't suffer. True self means the realization of oneness. Suffering is the belief in separation. Therefore the true self that suffers is not the true self.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2018 14:20:44 GMT -5
Yes. True self exists from birth (and before), and can suffer. Suffering before 2 actually malforms the cultural self (conditioned self). Thus can arise rather nasty people. The true self (Inner Being) doesn't suffer. True self means the realization of oneness. Suffering is the belief in separation. Therefore the true self that suffers is not the true self. I guess I shouldn't use words that are "pre-loaded". E seemed to be saying that there isn't a self until about 2 years of age, so there isn't any suffering until then. But there is an authentic self from birth. Ask parents who have several kids, difference and uniqueness shows up from a very early age. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self forms to a great extent as a means to protect the authentic self, protection from suffering. However, eventually a shift occurs, the sense of being (unconsciously) shifts from the authentic self to ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self is formed to shield and protect authentic self, but instead, eventually, this shift occurs, and 'we' mis-take the false for the real, we ~become~ the false self. And then most people live the remainder of their lives through an inauthentic sense of self. The spiritual journey is about recovering and living through the authentic self. The intended aim of the forming cultural self is for it to take abuse, be-a-shield, thus protecting authentic self from harm. But this shift occurs. The shift has different names, the fall, original sin, becoming lost. And instead of inauthentic self protecting authentic self, ~we~ become the inauthentic self.
|
|