|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 11:04:07 GMT -5
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. Yes, this I agree with...this is probably a very common aspect of the human struggle.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 11:25:56 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. I have heard accounts of people remembering being born, you can probably google it. There is a person there, present from birth. So a person that can suffer. People suffer, yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2018 11:27:49 GMT -5
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. I'd call that pain. I'd say that emotional pain that isn't from a physical sensation is pain as well, and not imagined pain, just pain. 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. Not interested in agreeing to disagree, eh? The memory of what it was like to suffer suffices, and anyone who thinks they're "enlightened" but still suffering isn't really in a position to point others toward "enlightenment". Tolle actually did continue on with his post grad work. I'm not sure for how long (as I recall, not long) but there is a gap in his story from the preface of "The Power of Now" up until his time on the park benches. You can find that gap explained in old interviews -- or that material used to be out there anyway. Jed wrote about how he was losing touch with what it felt like as time went on in his fist book, and I've never really been able to relate to that. Like I said, I've got no theory to present to try to change your mind.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 11:35:40 GMT -5
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. I'd call that pain. I'd say that emotional pain that isn't from a physical sensation is pain as well, and not imagined pain, just pain. 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. Not interested in agreeing to disagree, eh? The memory of what it was like to suffer suffices, and anyone who thinks they're "enlightened" but still suffering isn't really in a position to point others toward "enlightenment". Tolle actually did continue on with his post grad work. I'm not sure for how long (as I recall, not long) but there is a gap in his story from the preface of "The Power of Now" up until his time on the park benches. You can find that gap explained in old interviews -- or at that material used to be out there anyway. Jed wrote about how he was losing touch with what it felt like as time went on in his fist book, and I've never really been able to relate to that. Like I said, I've got no theory to present to try to change your mind. It may not have been academic work....I googled before I wrote it but couldn't find it, but I know he was presented with a particular opportunity which he recognized would take him back to the old way. In regard to the first bit, what do you see as pain? Mental torment? If so, yes, I have no problem at all with that being referred to as 'pain' (and yes, there can be 'emotional pain' as well) but surely 'mental torment' is a form of suffering....? Do you believe that one can recognize suffering in others, without being able to relate to that suffering in themselves?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 11:40:57 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. At the moment, we're not talking about compassion. We're talking about the nature of suffering, and this involves seeing through illusions of experience. Post all the heart wrenching videos you want. Send me off to Google past lives and pre-birth experience. Bake all the conceptual layer cakes you want, but experience is illusion. Understanding comes from within.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 11:41:21 GMT -5
I have heard accounts of people remembering being born, you can probably google it. There is a person there, present from birth. So a person that can suffer. People suffer, yes. The apparent 'person' is what distinguishes a sentient being from an artificially intelligent 'being'. Probably better to call it the ego, because it sounds a bit weird saying that dogs suffer because of the apparent person in them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 11:42:44 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. I will say this, suffering does not exist in the present moment. Suffering necessitates a psychological movement, carrying of a memory, comparison of now to a ~better~ future because of remembering a better past. If there is no psychological movement, suffering ceases. Yes
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 11:46:15 GMT -5
All this is why I can't make sense of the world without the inner essence. Most here always seems to take this view (your post), there is merely conditioning, the self is merely conditioning. Yes, I accept that the conditioned self is imaginary, I have always said this, I always agree where I can agree. However, for me (and the tradition of the 4th Way) there is a potential-real-possibility-of-individuation, this is what essence is, possibility, a seed. So one can become ~de-conditioned~. The erasure of conditioning allows the "seed" to germinate, the real to flower. So there doesn't have to be a movement from one conditioning to another, which is a kind of moving from one prison to another. The energy can be taken out of conditioning. 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. Every now and then we have to do things we don't like.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 11:48:04 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. At the moment, we're not talking about compassion. We're talking about the nature of suffering, and this involves seeing through illusions of experience. Post all the heart wrenching videos you want. Send me off to Google past lives and pre-birth experience. Bake all the conceptual layer cakes you want, but experience is illusion. Understanding comes from within. What are you saying here? You aren't stating your points clearly in relation to the subject. Unless you are a psychopath (and I very much doubt you are), there are photos and videos that could be posted that would undoubtedly instantly trigger an internal reaction in you. That internal reaction is a response to the suffering you see in the photos/videos. I suspect that seeing an adult human suffering is probably easier than seeing a baby or animal suffering, because we know that babies/animals have no developed persona, thus there is a sense of 'innocence' to them. It makes sense to me why one would want to NOT see suffering in babies/animals, but your gut will tell you the painful truth.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 11:48:29 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. Every now and then we have to do things we don't like.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2018 12:29:13 GMT -5
I'd call that pain. I'd say that emotional pain that isn't from a physical sensation is pain as well, and not imagined pain, just pain. Not interested in agreeing to disagree, eh? The memory of what it was like to suffer suffices, and anyone who thinks they're "enlightened" but still suffering isn't really in a position to point others toward "enlightenment". Tolle actually did continue on with his post grad work. I'm not sure for how long (as I recall, not long) but there is a gap in his story from the preface of "The Power of Now" up until his time on the park benches. You can find that gap explained in old interviews -- or at that material used to be out there anyway. Jed wrote about how he was losing touch with what it felt like as time went on in his fist book, and I've never really been able to relate to that. Like I said, I've got no theory to present to try to change your mind. It may not have been academic work....I googled before I wrote it but couldn't find it, but I know he was presented with a particular opportunity which he recognized would take him back to the old way. In regard to the first bit, what do you see as pain? Mental torment? If so, yes, I have no problem at all with that being referred to as 'pain' (and yes, there can be 'emotional pain' as well) but surely 'mental torment' is a form of suffering....? The mental torment is the suffering, the pain is from the chemical imbalance. Do you believe that one can recognize suffering in others, without being able to relate to that suffering in themselves? Yes I believe that and all it would take is a few examples out on the extreme to demonstrate it. I've never lost my house to a bomb dropped from a plane but I can empathize with someone who has. All that has to be related to is the pain, and it's not necessary to actually feel the pain to relate to someone going through that pain. As I explained, the memory of suffering suffices to relate to that aspect of the scenario.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 12:40:03 GMT -5
It may not have been academic work....I googled before I wrote it but couldn't find it, but I know he was presented with a particular opportunity which he recognized would take him back to the old way. In regard to the first bit, what do you see as pain? Mental torment? If so, yes, I have no problem at all with that being referred to as 'pain' (and yes, there can be 'emotional pain' as well) but surely 'mental torment' is a form of suffering....? The mental torment is the suffering, the pain is from the chemical imbalance. Do you believe that one can recognize suffering in others, without being able to relate to that suffering in themselves? Yes I believe that and all it would take is a few examples out on the extreme to demonstrate it. I've never lost my house to a bomb dropped from a plane but I can empathize with someone who has. All that has to be related to is the pain, and it's not necessary to actually feel the pain to relate to someone going through that pain. As I explained, the memory of suffering suffices to relate to that aspect of the scenario. I understand, but I'm suggesting that this memory of suffering that suffices, is suffering itself. It can be very mild, and when it is on the mild side, we might use the word 'empathy', but if you amplify the memory and the empathy, it becomes clearer what it is. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. In this sense, suffering is an objective aspect of the human experience.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2018 12:42:33 GMT -5
The mental torment is the suffering, the pain is from the chemical imbalance. Yes I believe that and all it would take is a few examples out on the extreme to demonstrate it. I've never lost my house to a bomb dropped from a plane but I can empathize with someone who has. All that has to be related to is the pain, and it's not necessary to actually feel the pain to relate to someone going through that pain. As I explained, the memory of suffering suffices to relate to that aspect of the scenario. I understand, but I'm suggesting that this memory of suffering that suffices, is suffering itself. It can be very mild, and when it is on the mild side, we might use the word 'empathy', but if you amplify the memory and the empathy, it becomes clearer what it is. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. In this sense, suffering is an objective aspect of the human experience. Right, we just disagree about this, and I've got nothing to offer in terms of any sort of debate that might persuade you to change your mind.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 12:47:27 GMT -5
I understand, but I'm suggesting that this memory of suffering that suffices, is suffering itself. It can be very mild, and when it is on the mild side, we might use the word 'empathy', but if you amplify the memory and the empathy, it becomes clearer what it is. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. In this sense, suffering is an objective aspect of the human experience. Right, we just disagree about this, and I've got nothing to offer in terms of any sort of debate that might persuade you to change your mind. okay.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 11, 2018 16:08:24 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. Sure babies operate mostly reactively, but I do believe babies basic thought processes are perhaps a bit more complex than is generally being given credit for. For example, studies show they begin to learn language while still in the womb. Then there's innate behaviour, i.e. biological pre-programmimg, which likely forms the basis of mental processing, and so in those respects they pretty much hit the ground running. Obviously that isn't to say they verbalise thoughts or have complex self-referencing thought structures at that stage, but then as I've said, I don't really see that as requisite for suffering anyway. I'm just taking the opportunity to talk out loud here, but I also think animals have more complex minds than is generally thought to be the case, and believe they too have basic thought processes. Did you know meerkats have different call signs for nouns and verbs, i..e a potential threat, and an attack in motion from that threat. It's now believed higher mammals can at least come very close to what we call conceptualisation, great apes, and dolphins etc, in fact dolphins have language so complex it rivals our own, with those clicks and squeaks, many of which go beyond our audible range. They have individual call signs, so effectively names. Employ sophisticated coordinated hunting strategies, which require fairly complex communication. More and more species have been seen to utilise tools, where previously it was thought to be exclusive to humans and higher primates, much less advanced species demonstrate the behaviour. Crows have been shown to have fairly complex spacio-temporal awareness, and I've talked before about how even more basic creatures often display behaviour over and above what we might expect from their basic physical apparatus, and fwiw, I say it's because they're merely expressions of that greater intelligence. Elephants have been shown to have an awareness of death, and grieve, and I could go on and on. There's so much more going on here than meets the eye.
|
|