|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 13:32:35 GMT -5
Well I don't disagree with a lot of that. For me what matters isn't whether there is conditioning, it is whether our experience is such that it is AS IF we are free of it. I am reminded of Tolle again...'whatever the present moment contains, accept it as if you had chosen it.' . For me, the natural way is to live spontaneously, freely and in the present moment...so for all intents and purposes....we are free from conditioning. I prefer the caterpillar-butterfly analogy to seed-flower because the caterpillar-butterfly analogy speaks of a shift in conditioning too. Certainly I understand what you mean by authentic/true self, and I definitely do see value and truth to the idea, but the boundary of the idea is that there is a conceptual gap created between authentic self and inauthentic self, individual 'true' self and conditioned self. I don't tend to like agreeing with Enigma, but when he is challenging the idea of a 'true self', I see him attempting to challenge that conceptual gap in his way. I'm sure you would agree that a caterpillar isn't a false self, and a butterfly isn't an authentic self. It's just a different form of conditioning, a different form of life experience. The transformation is different for humans in the sense that in order to achieve a higher potential, we HAVE to connect to the unconditioned formless/timeless dimension....whereas caterpillars probably don't, but overall, for humans too, it is still just a change in conditioning...life becoming a new kind of form. What I'm saying is that conditioning keeps a "caterpillar" from ever being a butterfly. It's kind of like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, kind of like the Ugly Duckling. yes the structure of the caterpillar conditioning is quite prohibitive...it doesn't support change very well at all.... change is experienced as existentially threatening. So it is often the case that spiritual change is gradual, but for some, there can be a trigger which brings down and changes the whole structure.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 13:34:24 GMT -5
yeah, but good non-duality can go beyond the 'illusion' bit in my opinion (as I tried to explain). But the non-dualists accept the conditioning, they accept it as part of the natural flow. This in a very real sense horrifies me (for them). However, they are adamant, so... What do you mean...can you expand just a bit please?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 14:54:01 GMT -5
Then how can we be sure those beings don't/can't suffer? I'm guessing your answer may be along the lines of what you said earlier here, about "reversing the process of suffering …", in which case I assume you're doing that, and applying it to a perception about the potential capacity of babies, and animals (i.e. their capacity for self-awareness). Putting aside the assumption there for the moment, presumably this is done through a process of observation, and application, so at the risk on going off on a tangent, how can we do that in this instance accurately, but not when it comes to determining the perceptual capacity of other beings, (i.e. in the others as perceivers scenario)? Maybe we can agree that, in general, suffering is formed in the mind rather than in the senses. Then the issue becomes, what sort of mental processes and structures are required to form suffering. Actually it occurs to me this may well be the root of the issue. I'm not convinced such a stark line can be drawn, because ultimately mind and senses don't really function independently, and whether we talk about physical anguish, or mental anguish, ultimately either necessitate both mind and senses. So I'm wondering if perhaps part of the issue is that the situation is always somewhat more holistic than that particular division. On top of that, the conception of mind I work with tends to be a bit different from your 'mere movement of thought'. For example, I wouldn't class ATA-T as being prior to mind, for me non-conceptual sensory perception (perceptual awareness), merely entails subtler levels of mind. I'm guessing this might have a bearing on how we're approaching this. I also feel there's a distinction to be made here between self-identification - which I would class as happening on a relatively surface level, and as being more convoluted, (i.e requiring the capacity of complex self-referential sets of thoughts etc), and self-awareness - which I consider to be considerably more primal, and effectively an intrinsic quality of sentience itself. It seems that you consider self-identification to be requisite to suffering, whereas I tend to work on the basis that self-awareness is enough, and that means that for me, all creatures have the potential to suffer, to varying degrees, and I've previously talked about the degree as being relative to a combination of physical apparatus, and mental capacity (faculties). Which admittedly does mean at the very least the baby does not have the capacity to suffer to the same extent as the adult (as both its apparatus and faculties are underdeveloped), and obviously in no small way these things dictate 'quality of experience'. But, yes, the controversial part is the idea that suffering is exclusive to human children (of a certain age), and adults, which as far as I can tell is peculiar to nonduality. In fact I'll again take the opportunity to point out it's certainly not what the Buddha taught, just in case folks are inclined to claim these teachings all point to the same thing. On the contrary, the Buddha actually taught that generally suffering in animals is even more prominent, due to their constant struggle for survival, incapacity for speech, and crucially, not having the requisite conditions (apparatus/faculties) for liberation to come about. Yes, this is both true, and an important point to make. It's the flip side of the argument, and really the only reason there's a dilemma at all. I've noticed it's previously been suggested here on the forum that there's little to no discernible difference between the experience of a baby, and that of a Buddha (awakened one), and for some reason I feel like this might be a good place to introduce my as.sertion that that simply isn't the case. In fact the idea that it is the case is also part of the problem here, and this actually goes on to tie in with some of L's position.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 14:57:31 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken. I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though. I've mentioned before that I don't use the phrase as narrowly as most folks here, (which seems to be suffering as; merely extreme psychological angst arising only upon an overlay of a complex set of self-referential thoughts). For me both acute psychological angst, and acute physical pain are different forms of suffering, so I use it as a umbrella term. I tend not to divorce the psychology, and physicality too much, as obviously mind and body are interdependent. I'm also not entirely adverse to employing the phrase to talk about milder prevailing dissatisfaction, (which seems to be in keeping with E's definition). But accept that can be problematic, insofar as it could potentially be classed as over-statement. It's also seems fairly clear that it all depends on what level we deem the necessary component of 'self awareness' to ultimately be happening. For example, I tend to envisage that as happening on a much subtler, more primal level than conceptualisation, or sets of self-referencing thoughts. I'll say this much. If we find ourselves in the position where, say, an elephant shuffling along with it's foot hanging off coz it got caught in a wire snare isn't/can't be suffering, then I think something's gone awry. I say their entire countenance and demeanor suggests otherwise, and have it on good authority that anyone who has worked closely in such situations would corroborate that. I think L's comment, translated for common folk, means suffering is subjective, which of course I agree with. Reefs comment is true in that the belief in separation is the foundation of existential suffering. Mine was an attempt to broaden that definition to include suffering that doesn't appear to be existential in nature. (It goes without saying that mine is the right one) Hehe. The only thing I could sanction there without comment, is that suffering that doesn't appear to be existential in nature should be included. Ok, that's good. After I posted that example I paused to consider whether what I said might be considered to be a case of engaging in reductio ad absurdum (appeal to extremes). But decided that wasn't really the case, as it was a fairly direct implication of the position that suffering is entirely exclusive to human children and adults.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 15:14:33 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken. I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though. I've mentioned before that I don't use the phrase as narrowly as most folks here, (which seems to be suffering as; merely extreme psychological angst arising only upon an overlay of a complex set of self-referential thoughts). For me both acute psychological angst, and acute physical pain are different forms of suffering, so I use it as a umbrella term. I tend not to divorce the psychology, and physicality too much, as obviously mind and body are interdependent. I'm also not entirely adverse to employing the phrase to talk about milder prevailing dissatisfaction, (which seems to be in keeping with E's definition). But accept that can be problematic, insofar as it could potentially be classed as over-statement. It's also seems fairly clear that it all depends on what level we deem the necessary component of 'self awareness' to ultimately be happening. For example, I tend to envisage that as happening on a much subtler, more primal level than conceptualisation, or sets of self-referencing thoughts. I'll say this much. If we find ourselves in the position where, say, an elephant shuffling along with it's foot hanging off coz it got caught in a wire snare isn't/can't be suffering, then I think something's gone awry. I say their entire countenance and demeanor suggests otherwise, and have it on good authority that anyone who has worked closely in such situations would corroborate that. What happened to that elephant (plural?) is a particular, and apparently real-life example of one of those gruesome extreme hypothetical's I was referring to. I'm not sure if you're intimating reductio ad absurdum, but if so refer to my previous post. I do think that where we narrowly define suffering, ending up in the situation you describe is unavoidable, and Andrew addressed the situation quite well here, talking about where the intuitive visceral response doesn't match, or fit in with the definition. I'm not entirely convinced it's all to do with what you go on to talk about below, for me it only becomes an issue when we begin to talk about SR as the end of all suffering, which is a notion I've never subscribed to, so it's not really an issue for me. Yes, it occurred to me that the other day I said that the Buddha didn't actually define suffering, and whilst that is technically true, otoh everything he taught was essentially an expansion of dukkha, it's causes, it's cessation, and the pathless path to its cessation. Voluminously he characterised dukkha, and corresponding various qualitative experience, yet steadfastly maintaining that ultimately it would remain anathema in any instance other than direct realisation. However, fwiw it's precisely because the conditions for the arising and cessation of suffering can be categorised that I don't see suffering as something strictly subjective. Therefore, for me this isn't quite accurate. Really suffering can't be classified as soley subjective, for that reason, nor soley objective for others.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 15:49:21 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken. I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though. Good question on “what is suffering?” and very interesting perspectives too. If I may add another here which is from the angle of good-bad duality rather than subject-object duality. I would define non-physical suffering as unpleasant experiences and emotions (which is somewhat similar to E's definition) and is also a mental construct or illusion. When we can see (through the eyes of the Absolute or Source) that suffering and non-suffering are in essence the same — that they differ only in form but not in substance and are in fact the Absolute or Source in disguise masquerading as suffering and non-suffering, then we no longer suffer. For instance, while worrying about losing money in the stock market if we managed to see that all our experiences of winning and losing as well as the emotion of worrying are in essence the same and simply energies vibrating at different frequencies, and are none other than Source in disguise, then we immediately transcend this good-bad duality and free ourselves from the suffering associated with this instance of losing and worrying. That's a position I struggle to relate to. However, apart from the 'ensouling' part, I can relate to that. Yep, the Buddhist position is basically, if we're alive, then there's always further to go. Or rather, less to be doing. Not a popular notion, I know. Folks generally wanna have thier cake and eat it, it's a lot like Brexit negotiations in that way.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 15:51:49 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken. I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though. I've mentioned before that I don't use the phrase as narrowly as most folks here, (which seems to be suffering as; merely extreme psychological angst arising only upon an overlay of a complex set of self-referential thoughts). For me both acute psychological angst, and acute physical pain are different forms of suffering, so I use it as a umbrella term. I tend not to divorce the psychology, and physicality too much, as obviously mind and body are interdependent. I'm also not entirely adverse to employing the phrase to talk about milder prevailing dissatisfaction, (which seems to be in keeping with E's definition). But accept that can be problematic, insofar as it could potentially be classed as over-statement. It's also seems fairly clear that it all depends on what level we deem the necessary component of 'self awareness' to ultimately be happening. For example, I tend to envisage that as happening on a much subtler, more primal level than conceptualisation, or sets of self-referencing thoughts. I'll say this much. If we find ourselves in the position where, say, an elephant shuffling along with it's foot hanging off coz it got caught in a wire snare isn't/can't be suffering, then I think something's gone awry. I say their entire countenance and demeanor suggests otherwise, and have it on good authority that anyone who has worked closely in such situations would corroborate that. We are not really at odds. I'm not saying Enigma's definition of suffering is wrong. We just look at it from slightly different perspectives. Enigma likes to talk about such things more in a therapeutic way. I don't. Sure, a lot of it just comes down to different angles.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 16:01:44 GMT -5
A screaming baby is eliciting a signal of 'there is a problem that is disrupting my welfare'. I would say that pain disrupts welfare to the extent that pain comes with a suffering component. If pain had no suffering component to it at all, well pain wouldn't be a problem would it, and we would have no reason to avoid stepping on an upturned plug. Would you say the only reason babies scream is out of pain? If they are hungry or thirsty, is that pain? If they have poop in their pants, is that pain? If they are tired, is that pain? If they want their toy, is that pain? Always? Any kind of pain is suffering? This is why I talk about the point of suffering; because pain is not suffering. Fear is not suffering. Not getting what you want is not suffering. None of that needs to be struggled with. When it is, it turns to suffering. Again this may be just a definition thing, but the Buddha literally listed all those things as examples of dukkha. I think the theory is that at some level, not getting what you want inevitably results in dissatisfaction (struggle), as a result of the desire not being met. And even if it is, it's loss is inevitable. Attachment may occur at imperceptible levels, but the principles hold, and the implications of the situation are somewhat more far-reaching than is generally understood.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 16:10:13 GMT -5
Seems like one is born with various propensities, making it a unique expression. An imaginary self is built on that, and eventually needs to be seen for the illusion it is. Simple, simple. I'm pretty confident that the 'one that is born with various propensities, making it a unique expression'...is the true self that sdp is speaking of. Apparently such latent tendencies are the key difference between the experience of the baby, and the awakened one. I watched an interesting conversation unfolding the other day between a couple of 'adepts', about to what extent such tendencies still prevail in a sotopanna. Supposedly thy're only truly gone in a Buddha.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 16:50:04 GMT -5
I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? Random example from youtube. Not easy to watch, Pain, suffering or both? One of the many problems with observing behavior to determine when suffering is happening, is that we inevitably compare it to our own behavior when we suffer. I.E. you would have to suffer a lot to cry like that, so baby must be suffering a lot. Well yeah, but that could be said about the determining of anything, as talked about here. The only real issue is the accuracy of the determining, the insight behind it, and how conciously one is operating.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 10, 2018 17:02:42 GMT -5
One of the many problems with observing behavior to determine when suffering is happening, is that we inevitably compare it to our own behavior when we suffer. I.E. you would have to suffer a lot to cry like that, so baby must be suffering a lot. Sometimes it is better just to trust your intuition, instinct and paternal instinct. I don't have a problem with talking about a particular form of adult human suffering (which I see you doing), but I think the idea that babies and animals don't/can't suffer is spiritual ideas gone a bit wrong. If it is intelligent, it can suffer. I suspect that much of the human movement towards spirituality is the natural desire to stop the suffering. Fair enough. But I think what can happen is that we can end up distancing ourselves from suffering, which is actually a subtle form of separation. There's nothing wrong with suffering given that we also experience pain and illness etc. When you see a baby in pain, you should suffer a bit. Take a look at the comments on the video....notice how people are suffering when they see it, some of the reactions are quite disturbing in fact. The goal of spirituality isn't actually not to suffer, it is to become more intelligent in our response to suffering. Basically, yes. It does come down to the definition to a certain degree, because considering dukkha as a range of unssatisfactoriness to extreme discomfort and angst, it could be said that the worm on the concrete baking to death in the sunshine is subject to dukkha, because it can be gleaned from the wiggling that it's not entirely satisfied with the situation, however it clearly doesn't experience extreme physical pain and psychological angst to the extent that the man being burnt alive in the cage by religious extremists does, because we can infer it doesn't have the apparatus of faculties necessary to experience that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 19:11:24 GMT -5
I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? It is obvious that a baby screaming from colic is likely experiencing pain. I think most (present company excluded) would say that the experience of such pain incessantly for long periods of time would mean that one was suffering. The topic of suffering (for which, I believe, there was a dedicated thread some time ago) has been and will probably forever be hotly debated. The reason why this is, I think, is because of the very definition of "suffering", which tends to be subjective. I once witnessed a dog yelping incessantly in pain, and it hurt me so much to hear it, I couldn't help but shed tears, myself. Long ago, I mentioned this to E, and he convinced me that the dog (not unlike the baby in the video) might have indeed been in pain, but was not suffering. By E's definition (which comes closer to the Buddhist definition), that dog, like the baby, Is not suffering. My own understanding is that suffering is what we bring on ourselves through belief that we are persons (with dignity and rights, etc.). That said, I don't think the baby is suffering. Woohoo!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 19:20:54 GMT -5
It is obvious that a baby screaming from colic is likely experiencing pain. I think most (present company excluded) would say that the experience of such pain incessantly for long periods of time would mean that one was suffering. The topic of suffering (for which, I believe, there was a dedicated thread some time ago) has been and will probably forever be hotly debated. The reason why this is, I think, is because of the very definition of "suffering", which tends to be subjective. I once witnessed a dog yelping incessantly in pain, and it hurt me so much to hear it, I couldn't help but shed tears, myself. Long ago, I mentioned this to E, and he convinced me that the dog (not unlike the baby in the video) might have indeed been in pain, but was not suffering. By E's definition (which comes closer to the Buddhist definition), that dog, like the baby, Is not suffering. My own understanding is that suffering is what we bring on ourselves through belief that we are persons (with dignity and rights, etc.). That said, I don't think the baby is suffering. well definition is everything here, and we are free to define 'suffering' however we like, but there is a level at which we can't help BUT recognize when another sentient being is suffering. This is an intuitive, innate, pre-conceptual, empathic, paternal and maternal recognition. So when we re-define it, it is really for intellectual purposes, and this may well have value at times. But it is an artificial change of definition, it really only has relevance in a very small context, and even then we can't escape what we know to be true. I'm sure the dog you saw was suffering, and I'm sure the baby in the video is suffering. And then on the flip side, the problem with re-defining 'suffering' for intellectual/spiritual purposes, is that causing pain to others becomes morally justifiable. It's just another sensation after all. If you hurt someone, or an animal, physically.... and they suffer, well that's their mental issues, nothing to do with what you did. If you see a starving baby...it's fine...they're not suffering. It's not the flip side. It's the underlying agenda for needing to be able to identify suffering through "intuitive, innate, pre-conceptual, empathic, paternal and maternal recognition". If your intuition were functioning without that bias, it would tell you what mine is telling me, which is not to be careless and uncompassionate but rather there is something important to understand about how suffering takes place.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 19:27:50 GMT -5
I think L's comment, translated for common folk, means suffering is subjective, which of course I agree with. Reefs comment is true in that the belief in separation is the foundation of existential suffering. Mine was an attempt to broaden that definition to include suffering that doesn't appear to be existential in nature. (It goes without saying that mine is the right one) I'm sure the elephant example isn't exclusive to elephants, but I agree, as it seems elephants are self aware in a biological sense. And then it follows that trying to describe the subjective experience of life without suffering to someone still suffering will never be free of the possibility of leading them into a set of misconceptions. Agreed. That's why I've resisted defining suffering in the past, but that's just an invitation to misuse the term anyway.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 19:31:11 GMT -5
well definition is everything here, and we are free to define 'suffering' however we like, but there is a level at which we can't help BUT recognize when another sentient being is suffering. This is an intuitive, innate, pre-conceptual, empathic, paternal and maternal recognition. So when we re-define it, it is really for intellectual purposes, and this may well have value at times. But it is an artificial change of definition, it really only has relevance in a very small context, and even then we can't escape what we know to be true. I'm sure the dog you saw was suffering, and I'm sure the baby in the video is suffering. And then on the flip side, the problem with re-defining 'suffering' for intellectual/spiritual purposes, is that causing pain to others becomes morally justifiable. It's just another sensation after all. If you hurt someone, or an animal, physically.... and they suffer, well that's their mental issues, nothing to do with what you did. If you see a starving baby...it's fine...they're not suffering. Indeed, I understand exactly what you're saying, A, which is I never (or, well, almost never) argue the point. When I believed that the dog was suffering, I wished I had a gun, so that I could put it out of it's misery (it's hindquarters were completely smashed ) I also agree that definition is everything, as it is imperative to communication. I honestly never liked the term, 'suffering' to convey what is really more ... dissatisfaction with what is. Hence, I cannot argue against the assertion that the baby in the video is suffering. Then SR means nothing, as dissatisfaction will continue after SR.
|
|