|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2018 16:12:59 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. So you changed your mind and agree that babies suffer.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 11, 2018 16:16:58 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. Yes memory can go back much further than is generally given credit for, eventually transcending lifetimes. Believe it or not babies can be born being fairly mindful, even if they have little control over themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 11, 2018 16:19:59 GMT -5
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. Not so, it's just generally overstated.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 11, 2018 16:21:21 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? Again, not so. It's just that most of these teachers are overrated, they don't know suffering, and haven't really found their way out.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2018 16:45:45 GMT -5
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. I'm very on board with this. I have three guinea pigs and have been astonished at times by their intelligence, the way they communicate with each other. They sometimes try and help each other escape from the already very large space they have (they have half of a large conservatory). For the record, I feel like I have overstated a couple of points I have made, and from experience, I have found this happens when I go deeply into a subject on a forum. In this discussion my point is as simple as you have made it here. I have no problem at all exploring the nature of the adult human struggle, but I do have a problem with the idea that the concept of 'suffering' should be reserved and applied ONLY for a particular form of adult human struggle.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 11, 2018 17:01:38 GMT -5
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. My point about the extreme scenarios is that they bring the mind to the limit of the distinction between pain and suffering. That distinction is valid, useful and valuable in two different contexts: one in which the dialog is about mitigating suffering, and another in which the nature of suffering is being pointed to in absolute terms. But every conceptual structure has it's limits, and it just so happens that exploring this one involves describing events that are quite dramatic, and that the limit reached applies to either of the two contexts. Yes, I can't disagreertion with any of that. Right, the issue isn't whether or not the end of dukkha is apprehendable, it's more about what that would entail, because of the extent of the range of dukkha. The first Truth is often summarised as 'life is dukkha', and as the third is, 'the cessation of dukkha is apprehendable', it seems like the implication should be fairly clear. (It's not really because what the cessation of 'life' is, over and above not-nothingness, isn't something mind can ever make much sense of). But SR is the end of a certain level of delusion, which shouldn't be understated, but shouldn't be overstated either, and generally it is. Rather than the be all and end all, SR is mostly merely access to reality, in the even bigger, bigger picture at least. Again, it depends what we really intend by suffering. You couldn't really tell if someone is SR at a glance, but if you came into the presence of a genuine Arahant you would know. I wouldn't normally get too far into this, but I sense there's something interesting coming through your words there that I'm inclined to respond to directly. You see, there's a particular aspect of enlightenment that is somewhat more literal than is generally understood, and what I mean by that is there's a reason both Christ and the Buddha are synonymous with halo's. It's what it means to say that Buddhahood is the embodiment of the Dhamma, it's a radiant state of being, and you may be familiar with the notion that to merely come into the presence of certain beings can have a profound, and transformative effect. I've started by talking about an extreme end of the spectrum there, but to hopefully give you a better idea of where I'm coming from, I could flip it and say you could experience a similar effect to a lesser degree merely by gazing upon an animal having a particularly serene moment. I'm talking about a light, and I'll take this opportunity to offer another example that I feel perhaps the SR among us may be able to relate to. This is hard to put into words, and I'm not even sure if I'm talking more about the SR aspect, or the CC aspect, but when that vast Intelligence is first realised, it can be said to have certain manifest qualities. The best way to put it is to say there is a combination of an aliveness, and clarity about it that is radiant. It is quite literally divine, and it's divinity is recognised as such, and it's a transformative moment which henceforth imbues all subsequent experience. In Buddhism they would say one has "thus put their roots deep". It is to become consciously aware of the divine nature of that ever-present awareness that is the backdrop of all experience. But it's the vividity of that aliveness, and clarity combination which is the qualitative nature of the deathless itself that I'm specifically interested in here, and I wonder if the initiated here on the forum have ever made the connection between that, and the expression "seen the light". You literally see the light, and the light referred to is the vivid radiant clarity of awareness itself, once seen, never unseen, and a more magnificent thing to behold never existed, nor shall. It is Presence, it is Peace. The Tibetan Buddhists talk in terms of the Mind of clear light. Anyway it is also Dhamma in the Truest sense, and as I say, Buddhahood is the quite literal embodiment of That, and it would be entirely apparent. Another aspect of this is that the pathless path to this umblemished, and immaculate state of being, effectively involves shedding impediments, and this shedding is en- lighten-ment, (in another literal sense, that is most often overlooked). In everyday language enlightenment can mean a simple insight, and that is still in keeping with the principle. However, ultimately enlightement is synonmous with, and ideally should be reserved for, the the truly awakened, the liberated One. Now to a lesser degree you may come across folks both here, and on your travels, whom display qualities including serenity, and clarity, who have the ability to express great insight, and who are virtuous, in both word and deed, You may notice yourself and others are drawn to that light, and respond positively, and it is a beautiful thing to behold. I personally admire them greatly. Such a person could even be said to have a certain aura about them, which could be construed as being akin to a lesser form of the halo I mentioned at the beginning. But don't make the mistake of thinking this establishment is frequented by any bona fide Buddha's. What's been clear to me for some time is that in 'the even bigger, bigger picture', no-one here has really even got a decent handle on what's pointed to by the first Noble Truth. Imo, the very best we can hope for in this lifetime is to recognise that in the great scheme of things, we're all still just playing at it. Imo, genuine Saupadisesa-nibbana-dhatu is not something we'll be able to make a lot of sense out of just yet, and just realising that would be a boon. Would be auspicious. (Ok, I gotta cut down on the walls!)
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 11, 2018 17:37:53 GMT -5
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. I'm very on board with this. I have three guinea pigs and have been astonished at times by their intelligence, the way they communicate with each other. They sometimes try and help each other escape from the already very large space they have (they have half of a large conservatory). For the record, I feel like I have overstated a couple of points I have made, and from experience, I have found this happens when I go deeply into a subject on a forum. In this discussion my point is as simple as you have made it here. I have no problem at all exploring the nature of the adult human struggle, but I do have a problem with the idea that the concept of 'suffering' should be reserved and applied ONLY for a particular form of adult human struggle.Yeah, I have a concern it's all part of an elaborate unconscious, have your cake, and eat it ruse, hehe. Still, I'm sure the guys probably think our approach is agenda driven too. It's an interesting topic. Do love the piggies though!!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 20:06:42 GMT -5
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. okay, but if there is pain being felt, then there is a psychological movement (and suffering). Doesn't have to be an adult abstract 'conceptual' psychological movement though. Pilgrim is right, and the sensing of pain is not a psychological movement. It can be just a sensation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 20:10:43 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... Part of conditioning leads to suffering, and changes as illusions are seen through.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 20:33:07 GMT -5
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. I'm suggesting there's no such thing as physical anguish, and if anguish is experienced, it's already mental anguish.
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 agree, and have said the same thing. 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. Sure.
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. I wasn't aware that it is a nonduality teaching. Would you have a quote handy? 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. That doesn't make sense to me. Why would awakening be pointed to as a good thing if it didn't change anything in the experience?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 20:37:40 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) 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.
Sure. I've always said biological self awareness is a prerequisite to suffering, and it applies to all animals.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 20:48:03 GMT -5
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. But surely Buddha would not have said of himself that if he doesn't get what he wants he will inevitably struggle and suffer, so it's not always inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 20:51:58 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. 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.Zackly. I'm just saying we can't refer to experience to prove the truth of the matter. As in, watch this video and you'll see that the baby subjectively suffers.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 20:54:30 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.Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 21:02:58 GMT -5
No, resistance is not suffering, and in the same way, pain is not suffering. But is the resistance to pain always suffering? The resistance to pain can be reaching for an Asprin.
|
|