|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2018 10:43:11 GMT -5
I'm definitely repeating myself here, but it's relevant in the context of the thread. The distinction between pain and suffering is one I appreciate and find insightful and useful. While I don't like to reduce suffering to the notion of a thought, I see potential value in offering someone who's in a position to do so the opportunity to investigate the nature of their own suffering as it's happening, and that's what I see as going on with that reduction. The way I see it, extremes like torture or the sudden loss of a child or similar scenarios render the distinction between pain and suffering inapplicable to discussions like this one. Seems to me that it's meaningless to say that someone who is literally on fire and about to die may or may not be suffering.
What can be interesting though, is to watch what happens during the inevitable charlie horse or similar type of cramp. Seriously. Try it. All the talk of suffering as mind created can be seen to be very true in palpable terms. If the ("energy" of the) cramp is accepted and allowed to flow through the body as it's happening, you become more like a copper wire, and less like a transformer. But, my opinion is that this kind of self-observation is toadally different from telling someone that their pain is all in their head and just a made up story. Some folks might be squeamish about peep A making the suggestion to suffering peep B to try this kind of self-observation. But is it always the kinder option to offer emotional support rather than suggest that kind of self-observation? I think I read this same method/process for changing pain perspective in a self-improvement book.😆 Wouldn't surprise me, at all!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2018 10:45:56 GMT -5
It may all be by design, but that doesn't change the fact that suffering is indeed an interpretation apart from the sensation. Try it next time if you don't believe me. When the real Self is seen, suffering is both suffering and not suffering, or really, neither. Yes of course suffering is an interpretation based upon the sensation felt . Without a sense of something one would not know of it . When the Self is realized there is no thought of suffering . Suffering is not known in this instance . The mistake made in my eyes is when peeps including masters compare no self with self . This is why you can get peeps walking around speaking of there is no self present of this world when there is . There is because one is here speaking of it compared to not . This is why you get the comparison of no-one is suffering or the real I AM cannot suffer . What is happening is one is coming to some sort of conclusion within mind that relates to beyond it . The thought of Self is of the mind . The thought of ''When the real Self is seen, suffering is both suffering and not suffering, or really, neither'' is just a similar interpretation that one has that bases the sensation of pain in their toe . It's a self defeating premise based upon that all is concluded in mind . There is no way around that, so using the mindful concluded interpreted notion as not being factual or holding any weight is flawed . As I see it, the reason this happens is because Self and self are conceptually divided to begin with, then the suffering is assigned to the self division, and then the self division is seen as illusory, and the suffering assignment is dispensed with as well. Meanwhile, Self remains free of suffering and beyond it all. The person is not separate from that which creates and perceives through it. If we cease dividing, the strange conclusions will cease as well.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2018 19:29:38 GMT -5
But do you perceive it as dismissing the I AM of the worldly mind-body to suggest that the real I AM is ultimately untouched by either pleasure or pain? It really does depend on who/m is asking the question in reflection of their behaviour . As Reefs and I have pointed out there is something amiss for a peep to succumb the pleasures of the flesh as an example while distancing what they are from the mind-body . In this respect it would be like one can be swayed by the senses and not care about the consequences because there are no real consequences . This was part of the parcel why myself and Reefs disagreed with the bad press 'self help' gets at times . It's too convenient in my eyes to be swayed by the pleasures and not be disciplined to maintain optimum health . If I thought this mind-body-self was just a story or illusory then why would I or anyone go down the pleasure / desire route and not the healthy / disciplined self healing route? There has to be something that is at the helm of one's self that is swayed by one's senses and one's desires . Where is the real I AM when one is succumbing to one's pleasures and desires? Is the real I AM distancing the mind-body self that experiences suffering . If the real I AM is only associated to beyond the mind / beyond the world then it really has no place in the discussion of suffering . What we have to deal with is what is present . What is present however is what you are .. One can't prise the real I AM from the illusory . Is it the real I AM that say's the real I AM doesn't suffer . It's all a bit of a mess I would say . So should I take that as a "yes" then? The pointer of "the real I AM" is relevant to the discussion of suffering because finding what is pointed to is how suffering ends, or, at the very least, anyone for whom suffering has ended will eventually become informed as to the finding. It's not necessary to describe the senses as an illusion to use the idea to point. The mess starts with objectifying what is pointed to. Ain't noone nor nothin' really "at the helm". Not that there's ultimately anything wrong with peeps who structure their lives that way. Most do.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2018 19:39:05 GMT -5
.. ah okay, when I said self realized I mean when the world is no more . When the world is no more, as in it does not exist, then sufferings don't exist either . There is no appearance of anything . This is why you cannot compare beyond appearances with appearances . Well you must be using a different definition of self realized than me. Your definition of self-realization simply sounds like deep sleep. Tenka had an experience that I take to be Samadhi, or in any event, no mind. He calls this Self realization, and Self realization is then lost when mind returns.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2018 20:00:31 GMT -5
I don't mean unconditional Love, rather dualistic love. Ok, yes, I was evading the question with a context mix because it gets deep from there .. "what is feeling? what is it that feels?" etc. Caught me. So...what is feeling? What is it that feels?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2018 20:09:51 GMT -5
Yes of course suffering is an interpretation based upon the sensation felt . Without a sense of something one would not know of it . When the Self is realized there is no thought of suffering . Suffering is not known in this instance . The mistake made in my eyes is when peeps including masters compare no self with self . This is why you can get peeps walking around speaking of there is no self present of this world when there is . There is because one is here speaking of it compared to not . This is why you get the comparison of no-one is suffering or the real I AM cannot suffer . What is happening is one is coming to some sort of conclusion within mind that relates to beyond it . The thought of Self is of the mind . The thought of ''When the real Self is seen, suffering is both suffering and not suffering, or really, neither'' is just a similar interpretation that one has that bases the sensation of pain in their toe . It's a self defeating premise based upon that all is concluded in mind . There is no way around that, so using the mindful concluded interpreted notion as not being factual or holding any weight is flawed . As I see it, the reason this happens is because Self and self are conceptually divided to begin with, then the suffering is assigned to the self division, and then the self division is seen as illusory, and the suffering assignment is dispensed with as well. Meanwhile, Self remains free of suffering and beyond it all. The person is not separate from that which creates and perceives through it. If we cease dividing, the strange conclusions will cease as well. The notion that "the real I AM is ultimately untouched by either pleasure or pain" doesn't suggest any sort of fragmentation of consciousness. Rather, it's making the point that what we really are is indestructible, immutable and eternal. It's not meant to offer an escape hatch, but rather, perhaps for some folks, they might need a life preserver.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2018 20:12:12 GMT -5
Ok, yes, I was evading the question with a context mix because it gets deep from there .. "what is feeling? what is it that feels?" etc. Caught me. So...what is feeling? What is it that feels? An excellent focus for self-inquiry. Now, how to go about doing that ?? .. ...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2018 20:21:39 GMT -5
The distinction between sensation and suffering is critical if we are to understand how pain can turn to suffering, or not. In your thread about God being unconscious, you or rather Adyashanti suggested that God is experiencing consciousness through us, a finite permutation of God. Why does God have an aversion for suffering? Or how does suffering fit into the context of God being unconscious? What is suffering about in this whole scheme? Something I often say is, God has fallen into his own dream. It's in the dream that God has an aversion to suffering, and God goes unconscious. We're familiar with that side of God, and it's not pretty, but it's still God. However, in the last post I was talking about the distinction between sensation and suffering.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2018 20:36:26 GMT -5
As I see it, the reason this happens is because Self and self are conceptually divided to begin with, then the suffering is assigned to the self division, and then the self division is seen as illusory, and the suffering assignment is dispensed with as well. Meanwhile, Self remains free of suffering and beyond it all. The person is not separate from that which creates and perceives through it. If we cease dividing, the strange conclusions will cease as well. The notion that "the real I AM is ultimately untouched by either pleasure or pain" doesn't suggest any sort of fragmentation of consciousness. Rather, it's making the point that what we really are is indestructible, immutable and eternal. It's not meant to offer an escape hatch, but rather, perhaps for some folks, they might need a life preserver. Right, that was my point. To then conclude that suffering isn't really happening because there's nobody for it to happen to, is taking the fragmentation of Consciousness to be real and true, and God is safe in his heaven. God is not safe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2018 20:37:31 GMT -5
So...what is feeling? What is it that feels? An excellent focus for self-inquiry. Now, how to go about doing that ?? .. ... I've never known you to be lost for words.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 26, 2018 0:09:15 GMT -5
The distinction between sensation and suffering isn't actually completely distinct, but rather a delineated definition. In Buddhist philosophy suffering includes pain, illness and other sensational discomfort, but also cites 'craving' as the 'cause'. 'Craving', refers to both desire and aversion, which more generally refers to your reactivity - psychological reactivity rather than the reflexes of the organism. The neutral observation we call 'equanimity' is the same as being consciously aware sans reactivity, which is more difficult during painful experiences, and most people avoid discussing the reality of unpleasant experiences during meditation preferring to disclose the more pleasurable or the higher spiritual, but I suggest sitting still for an hour and seeing how pleasant those last ten minutes are - as they will most probably involve significant discomfort. It's just that people become reactive toward their sensations, and as the mind is thus agitated, they become wildly distracted - as their aversion toward discomfort drives their desire for a more pleasurable sensation, which is precicely the cycle of avoidance and pursuit that perpetuates the ego in time, and as one endures in time, it seems as though sensation is what happens to me. Hence at the centre of psychological reactivity is the ego centric self writhing in deep, deep misery. When JK says 'I don't mind what happens' or Tolle says 'I am surrendered to the moment' they speak to being unaffected by passing experiences.
If one remains still in that equanimity, or IOW, is not reacting to their experiences, the quiet mind becomes sharper and more concentrated enabling them to perceive experience on more subtle levels. A sensation of solid enduring pain shifts to a subtler sensation of intricate dynamics as one can perceive the tiny details of what constitutes the larger overall pain. Then there is a subtlety at which the experience can't be described as pain because it has no quality that hurts, and that is where the whole Buddhist story of suffering, including physical pain, 'ceases'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 7, 2018 0:18:36 GMT -5
All, The discussion about the nature of appearances has been moved here. R
|
|