|
Post by lolly on Feb 11, 2018 0:05:48 GMT -5
Yes, the term 'suffering' has a cultural meaning which isn't quite the same as 'dukkha', for example, as dukkha does pertain to pain as well as psychological 'craving'. 'Craving' covers the desire to have and the desire not to have. Perhaps a baby just cries because of discomfort but has no idea about how to alleviate it, so hasn't imagined 'something else' to crave. Later on we remember pleasurable feelings, so when pain arises we run from it in pursuit of 'something else' - which is the movement of the imagined self we call 'ego'. Generally, I see baby crying as a spontaneous, present moment, uncensored response to (mostly) low levels of discomfort. Because there is no conceptual 'me' structure, there are no 'me' referenced thoughts about the implications of the pain, which is the source of psychological suffering. Well, yes, but to me, saying 'me structure' is so arbitrary I don't even know what it means, so I mention more specific aspects such as volition, aversion/desire dynamics, or the Buddhist reference 'craving', because these are tangible noticeable things. It's true enough to say that an infant experiences sensation without 'other' references, though.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 4:51:54 GMT -5
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. yeah I agree. As I said in another message, I think the illusion of 'choice' can add many layers of extra stress to what is already a bad situation. In this kind of situation, the thought of 'what do I do? or 'what can I do?'' is still likely to arise, even when there really is nothing to be done (for example the burning man in the cage). I guess an apt word for this very human struggle is 'desperation'. I have occasionally thought of those folks stuck on the high levels of the world trade centre that day, those that leapt out of the window thousands of feet. The apparent 'choice' that presented itself...stay or jump, and having to consider that choice.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 5:01:06 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. 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. I'm not quite sure exactly what you are telling me. Are you telling me that the intuitive and instinctive sense that a baby or animal is suffering is wrong? To me, that is actually spirituality gone wrong, because you are having to argue or 'distance' yourself from something that is inescapably evident. Hey, I have no issues with talking about a particular kind of human struggle, but wholly disagree with the hijacking of the definition of 'suffering' so that babies and animals in pain is now no problem. Not only does it ignore the physiological benefit of 'suffering' which says 'take action', but the moral implications are horrendous. You see, the consequence of recognizing suffering in another, is that YOU will suffer too, at least a bit...and of course, who wants to suffer? I'm sure you don't. But in my opinion, spirituality is about accepting all of life, and at the moment, that includes the suffering of babies and animals. That acceptance isn't going to eliminate the suffering, but there is a directness to the acceptance, and it creates the opportunity for intelligent responses.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 5:05:57 GMT -5
First, sometimes physical pain is inflicted on babies and young children. Then they are also exposed to verbal abuse, I wish you were never born, Shut up, quit crying, etc. A persona is formed to deflect injury. The persona is part of the structure that causes injury. How is it in a position to deflect injury? It creates a kind of block to emotional pain. In most cultures in our world, we experience rejection and abandonment when we are born and raised. Even hospitals are barbaric in their own way (though the intention of them might be honourable). It's hard enough as an adult experiencing the intensity of feeling, for a baby/infant...it's just not appropriate to feel the full force of the collective pain and suffering of the world.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 5:07:28 GMT -5
[/b]unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. [/quote]A sense of self is not a 'me' structure in the mind. A sense of self does not lead to suffering. Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure.
We are moved to comfort simply because we believe it is suffering because it is acting like we do when we suffer. I'm suggesting we're missing something about how suffering happens. [/quote] Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. [/quote] ------------------------------------------ Andy:Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure. And I'm saying there isn't a 'me' structure in the infant. Andy:Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. Not if you knew it was a robot and that robots can't feel pain. What did I miss? [/quote] Well, you are missing the point that there is a 'me' structure in a baby, and this 'me' structure is the difference between AI robot and intelligent being. Apparently the AI robot can artificially 'experience' sensation, such as pain. They can be given artificial sensors apparently. [/quote] How do you figure I missed that point? I addressed it directly? [/quote] If a baby has no me structure of any kind, then it is the same as an AI bot. The 'me' structure becomes conceptual as we develop, but in essence it is just a primal and preconceptual sense of self. This is what differs to the AI bot, it has no 'me' structure. You have yet to explain to me what you see as the difference between a baby and an AI bot. [/quote] Without a 'me' structure, the baby becomes a robot? [/quote] That's not what I said lol. A baby has a 'me' structure (a primal and preconceptual sense of self), but a robot does not.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 5:08:41 GMT -5
The moment pain is noticed, there is suffering (I explained this in a different message). It is a physiological necessity, so that we can act ON the pain. If pain contained no component of suffering, then it would have no consequence, it would be irrelevant. Toothache? No problem, no point in going to a dentist. Tummy ache from too much food? No problem, just keep eating, Glass on the floor? No problem, just step on it. It is important that there is suffering, for as long as we manifest and create pain. It is the suffering that we act on, not the pain. In fact, when I have observed this very closely, what I have noticed is that one of the key pains of being in pain is the enforced contraction of focus and attention. We act to resolve pain (and suffering) so that we can relax our focus/attention. As I also said, I think you are talking about a particular kind of struggle, and that's fine, but then it is useful to specify this struggle, rather than assassinating the word 'suffering', which already has a very appropriate and inescapable meaning. You have assassinated suffering by making it the same as pain. No, suffering is the result of pain. It is the suffering that prompts action. Eating too much, pain in belly, slight suffering, stop eating.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 5:11:03 GMT -5
[/b]unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. [/quote]A sense of self is not a 'me' structure in the mind. A sense of self does not lead to suffering. Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure.
We are moved to comfort simply because we believe it is suffering because it is acting like we do when we suffer. I'm suggesting we're missing something about how suffering happens. [/quote] Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. [/quote] ------------------------------------------ Andy:Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure. And I'm saying there isn't a 'me' structure in the infant. Andy:Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. Not if you knew it was a robot and that robots can't feel pain. What did I miss? [/quote] Well, you are missing the point that there is a 'me' structure in a baby, and this 'me' structure is the difference between AI robot and intelligent being. Apparently the AI robot can artificially 'experience' sensation, such as pain. They can be given artificial sensors apparently. [/quote] How do you figure I missed that point? I addressed it directly? [/quote] I'm going to have to agree with andrew, from what I recall you never give an indication there is a 'self' (a me structure) until about the age of 2. [/quote] Right, no 'me' structure until it can be conceptualized. This is the reason for the 'terrible twos', when everything becomes 'ME!' and 'MINE!' [/quote] That stage is when the preconceptual sense of self becomes more conceptual and abstract. At this point the persona is developing more strongly, and the sense of being apparently separate is more pronounced. It is a development process, it's not that something magically appears at two.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 5:15:50 GMT -5
If pain is suffering, then there is no way out of suffering, and teachers have lied to us for thousands of years. You guys both okay with that? Pretty much. I'm still not going to stub my toe deliberately, and I would prefer if we, as a creative species, were less 'dramatic' in our creations.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 5:17:05 GMT -5
No, I'm saying that speaking of an imagined self suggests that there is some kind of imaginer, that is imagining a self. Which is fine if you aren't wanting to point away from the idea of an imaginer, but it seemed initially like you were wanting to do that. I was pointing away from the idea of a personal self born with propensities and such, or a personal self on any one of the other cake levels. There IS an imaginer, which we call Awareness, Consciousness, Intelligence. Okay, but you demonstrated that you were fine with the third layer too. You spoke of an imagined self, an individual with propensities, and presumably a source from which the individual is expressed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2018 7:40:11 GMT -5
You have assassinated suffering by making it the same as pain. No, suffering is the result of pain. It is the suffering that prompts action. Eating too much, pain in belly, slight suffering, stop eating. Well then, is the only way to end suffering to end pain?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 8:08:14 GMT -5
No, suffering is the result of pain. It is the suffering that prompts action. Eating too much, pain in belly, slight suffering, stop eating. Well then, is the only way to end suffering to end pain? In overall simple terms, yes. Which means that suffering is going to be part of our lives unless you foresee an end to pain. However, I spoke of the relationship between the experience of pain and the noticing of pain. So an animal, when there is pain, will often lie still, perhaps because movement brings attention to the pain...and in one sense therefore, the movement 'creates' the pain (and therefore the suffering). So in the lying still, the animal isn't particularly suffering....animals seem to instinctively know best how to handle these things (though on the other hand, they can't choose to take medicine). But, the lying still doesn't resolve the problem in the long term, unless it is just a temporary body issue like a belly ache from eating too much grass or something. Similarly, as humans, there are various strategies that can be used to deal with pain, such that pain isn't noticed in the common way. In a sense there are strategies which don't 'aggravate', and these are obviously very useful for folks that are in long term pain. Generally speaking though, the suffering is useful because it is a prompt to action...like the eating example, or tooth pain etc. Equally, the suffering we experience when we see a baby suffering is useful, it is a prompt to tend to the baby, provide comfort in some way if we can. In this regard, suffering is the mechanism that ensures that we aren't all just total psychopaths. And pain can be very useful for burning up a particular kind of human struggle, because there can come a point when folks realize that the best way to handle the pain and the suffering that comes with it, is to accept and surrender. I don't think this eliminates either the pain or the suffering, but it can eliminate stress and strain around it, and as a secondary result of that, we may not notice (and create) the pain in the way we do when we are fighting it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2018 9:09:37 GMT -5
Well then, is the only way to end suffering to end pain? In overall simple terms, yes. Which means that suffering is going to be part of our lives unless you foresee an end to pain. However, I spoke of the relationship between the experience of pain and the noticing of pain. So an animal, when there is pain, will often lie still, perhaps because movement brings attention to the pain...and in one sense therefore, the movement 'creates' the pain (and therefore the suffering). So in the lying still, the animal isn't particularly suffering....animals seem to instinctively know best how to handle these things (though on the other hand, they can't choose to take medicine). But, the lying still doesn't resolve the problem in the long term, unless it is just a temporary body issue like a belly ache from eating too much grass or something. Similarly, as humans, there are various strategies that can be used to deal with pain, such that pain isn't noticed in the common way. In a sense there are strategies which don't 'aggravate', and these are obviously very useful for folks that are in long term pain. Generally speaking though, the suffering is useful because it is a prompt to action...like the eating example, or tooth pain etc. Equally, the suffering we experience when we see a baby suffering is useful, it is a prompt to tend to the baby, provide comfort in some way if we can. In this regard, suffering is the mechanism that ensures that we aren't all just total psychopaths. And pain can be very useful for burning up a particular kind of human struggle, because there can come a point when folks realize that the best way to handle the pain and the suffering that comes with it, is to accept and surrender. I don't think this eliminates either the pain or the suffering, but it can eliminate stress and strain around it, and as a secondary result of that, we may not notice (and create) the pain in the way we do when we are fighting it. ok, I understand. Yes, acceptance and surrender can mitigate pain and suffering. Even the volitional variety of acceptance and surrender. And I don't mean to validate volition as anything other than apparent in that opinion. So, you've coupled pain and suffering together by holding that suffering always results from pain. I have to opine that this is a dwad to collapsing both pain and suffering into the same notion. Where there is suffering, there is pain, no doubt. But it's not always true that were there is pain, there is always suffering. Suffering can end, regardless of pain. But I don't have any intellectually defensible argument to persuade you that I'm right. That's fine, as it's a point I'm happy to agree to disagree about.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2018 10:11:20 GMT -5
The persona is part of the structure that causes injury. How is it in a position to deflect injury? It creates a kind of block to emotional pain. In most cultures in our world, we experience rejection and abandonment when we are born and raised. Even hospitals are barbaric in their own way (though the intention of them might be honourable). It's hard enough as an adult experiencing the intensity of feeling, for a baby/infant...it's just not appropriate to feel the full force of the collective pain and suffering of the world. Yes, what he said.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 11:01:04 GMT -5
No, resistance is not suffering, and in the same way, pain is not suffering. I agree they are different. So if you don't see resisting as suffering, then what do humans do, or not do, that causes them to suffer? They leave the present moment, revisiting the past with the idea 'this should not have happened', and project into the future with the idea that the situation may get worse or not come to an end.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 11:02:43 GMT -5
In overall simple terms, yes. Which means that suffering is going to be part of our lives unless you foresee an end to pain. However, I spoke of the relationship between the experience of pain and the noticing of pain. So an animal, when there is pain, will often lie still, perhaps because movement brings attention to the pain...and in one sense therefore, the movement 'creates' the pain (and therefore the suffering). So in the lying still, the animal isn't particularly suffering....animals seem to instinctively know best how to handle these things (though on the other hand, they can't choose to take medicine). But, the lying still doesn't resolve the problem in the long term, unless it is just a temporary body issue like a belly ache from eating too much grass or something. Similarly, as humans, there are various strategies that can be used to deal with pain, such that pain isn't noticed in the common way. In a sense there are strategies which don't 'aggravate', and these are obviously very useful for folks that are in long term pain. Generally speaking though, the suffering is useful because it is a prompt to action...like the eating example, or tooth pain etc. Equally, the suffering we experience when we see a baby suffering is useful, it is a prompt to tend to the baby, provide comfort in some way if we can. In this regard, suffering is the mechanism that ensures that we aren't all just total psychopaths. And pain can be very useful for burning up a particular kind of human struggle, because there can come a point when folks realize that the best way to handle the pain and the suffering that comes with it, is to accept and surrender. I don't think this eliminates either the pain or the suffering, but it can eliminate stress and strain around it, and as a secondary result of that, we may not notice (and create) the pain in the way we do when we are fighting it. ok, I understand. Yes, acceptance and surrender can mitigate pain and suffering. Even the volitional variety of acceptance and surrender. And I don't mean to validate volition as anything other than apparent in that opinion. So, you've coupled pain and suffering together by holding that suffering always results from pain. I have to opine that this is a dwad to collapsing both pain and suffering into the same notion. Where there is suffering, there is pain, no doubt. But it's not always true that were there is pain, there is always suffering. Suffering can end, regardless of pain. But I don't have any intellectually defensible argument to persuade you that I'm right. That's fine, as it's a point I'm happy to agree to disagree about. To clarify a particular point, although I see suffering as a physiologically necessary component of pain, suffering can arise in other ways too. For example, certain kinds of suffering are a result of mental problems or chemical imbalances in the brain, there is no 'physical' pain as such. Mental torment basically. To clarify one more point, suffering doesn't have to have a particular intensity to it in order for it to be 'suffering'. For example, to recognize that another is suffering, requires us to recognize suffering in ourselves. We don't have to deeply engage with that suffering in ourselves, just that single moment can be enough. I suspect that this is how it is for many of the 'enlightened', in that they recognize suffering in others, and therefore themselves, but the movement that follows isn't to explore their own potential for suffering...in fact, exploring our own potential for suffering is a very egocentric thing to do in some situations. I am reminded of Tolle again. He tells a story about his post awakening experience. There was a time, a few months after I think, when the idea to return to the academic world presented itself. On consideration, he could see that to take that route would be to take him back to unconsciousness. He chose a different path. I would say that in that moment he found the potential for suffering within himself, and moved away from it (wisely). It's not that suffering was eliminated in the awakening, it's that the movement to explore that inner capacity was no longer necessary. But that capacity remains in such way that the suffering in other sentient beings can still be recognized. We are never actually 'free from suffering', but we may not experience the movement to 'go there' to any depth or length.
|
|