|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 12:52:00 GMT -5
The resistance to pain can be reaching for an Asprin. Reaching for the aspirin is a response to the suffering component of pain. It is a response to the recognition that the pain is undesirable. When something is known to be undesirable, there is suffering to varying degree. If pain had no suffering component, it would be neutral. In fact it wouldn't even BE 'pain' or felt AS 'pain' if it had no suffering component. Experiencing something undesirable is not suffering in my way of defining it and talking about it. It doesn't mean you can't define it however you want, it just means we can't discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 13:05:29 GMT -5
No I mean sensing is a movement of mind.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 13:07:57 GMT -5
It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of intuition. We have the capacity to rationally ignore intuition, and to distance ourselves from it, but in the case of 'suffering', one can only only rationalize and distance themselves so far. It would be repulsive of me to post photos that would illustrate the point to you, but intuitively you can recognize that you don't want to see those photos, because you aren't insensitive to the suffering of others. My point is, the photos would not illustrate the point. I don't believe that you have been able to nullify the voice or feeling of your intuition altogether, but it seems that you successfully ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 13:10:37 GMT -5
And that's the agenda, but in order to understand suffering, we have to set the agendas to the side and see what's really going on. I agree. I'm challenging your agenda to hijack and assassinate the definition of 'suffering' to suit your own interest in avoiding experiencing suffering which you intuitively recognize in sentient beings of all kinds. No one wants to suffer, but the spiritual way is to embrace all that we are, and that includes our capacity and potential to suffer. Nothing is eliminated in the spiritual journey, though our interests, values and focus may change in such way that even when there is suffering, there may be peace, or love or even joy. You mean at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 13:10:43 GMT -5
Reaching for the aspirin is a response to the suffering component of pain. It is a response to the recognition that the pain is undesirable. When something is known to be undesirable, there is suffering to varying degree. If pain had no suffering component, it would be neutral. In fact it wouldn't even BE 'pain' or felt AS 'pain' if it had no suffering component. Experiencing something undesirable is not suffering in my way of defining it and talking about it. It doesn't mean you can't define it however you want, it just means we can't discuss it. It is the dis-ease, dissatisfaction, discomfort that is undesirable. The absence of well-being. The 3 d's there is the general way to define suffering, so when someone sees a baby screaming, they know the baby is in a state of dis-ease, discomfort and dis-satisfaction, and that they are experiencing it very directly.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 13:13:12 GMT -5
I agree. I'm challenging your agenda to hijack and assassinate the definition of 'suffering' to suit your own interest in avoiding experiencing suffering which you intuitively recognize in sentient beings of all kinds. No one wants to suffer, but the spiritual way is to embrace all that we are, and that includes our capacity and potential to suffer. Nothing is eliminated in the spiritual journey, though our interests, values and focus may change in such way that even when there is suffering, there may be peace, or love or even joy. You mean at the same time? Sure. For example, many people with illness and pain as they approach the end of their life are suffering to an extent, and yet they are still able to love and appreciate.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 13:16:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 13:18:36 GMT -5
It's in response to what I imagine is happening internally in the characters I see, not in response to the suffering I see. I can't see suffering in another, I can only imagine it. Then I can call it intuition of gut or obvious truth or whatever floats my little row boat. Okay, so it sounds here like you distance yourself from your intuition by saying it is 'imaginary'. This is a subtle way of thinking your way out of feeling. What other animals would do that? It's the diagnostic story telling phase of the argument already.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 13:20:46 GMT -5
the same as the imagined self that you said isnt a self....?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 13:23:39 GMT -5
Okay, so it sounds here like you distance yourself from your intuition by saying it is 'imaginary'. This is a subtle way of thinking your way out of feeling. What other animals would do that? It's the diagnostic story telling phase of the argument already. well I will take a step back. What you seemed to suggest is that intuition should be ignored or discounted on the basis that it is imagination. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 12, 2018 13:50:30 GMT -5
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. I think of that as awakening, not self-realization. The end of suffering has everything to do with one's orientation to the relative, and nothing to do with a set of conditions that make the world a comfy place for the individual. There are no levels to the realization, it's binary. The conditions that lead to pain will be as they were before the moment of realization in the moment after. What changes is the capacity for those conditions to ever again mask the true nature of reality. Awakening, in contrast, is a relative state of being consciously on notice that there is an existential truth worth seeking, and the four noble truths are as good as any a statement of what that is. What you wrote about sainthood ( that I promise to come back to) reflects the point that life will express through a realized individual by and through a set of conditioning and conditions that will keep changing for as long as they remain alive. But no two individuals are exactly alike, and realization is absolute freedom, so expecting the process of life post realization to manifest in one way or another is like trying to box the wind. Well, I think we utilise the terms differently, as well as perhaps having some other differences in how we see things. Which of course is fine. The end of suffering comes through removing the causes of suffering, which ultimately comes by way of realisation, but I have no problem in envisaging that situation as a whole in terms of levels, which are defined by the both the presence and absence of certain characteristics, i.e. virtuous, and non-virtuous states, (and quite voluminously in the Pali canon). Sure the conditions for pain are constant. Honestly, don't feel you need to. Just promise me you won't interpret what I said as, we can only tell if someone isn't suffering if they have a gold ring floating over their head, hehe
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 13:56:02 GMT -5
Babies aren't lacking that biological self awareness, it just isn't highly developed initially. To be clear, I'm not saying biological self awareness is the cause of suffering. I'm not clear if you think biological self awareness begins at 2 and above.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 12, 2018 17:46:36 GMT -5
Sure. I've always said biological self awareness is a prerequisite to suffering, and it applies to all animals. I'm a bit confused at this stage as to whether or not you think animals have the capacity to suffer? I think maybe you're saying certain 'higher' animals may do, but only if they have the capacity for an additional component over and above biological self-awareness and pain, which you deem necessary for suffering to occur, i.e. some sort of psychological capacity akin to sets of self-referencing (me) thoughts. But mostly, I'm just confused now. If anybody questions whether animals suffer or not, watch the film Buck. (Buck has tremendous empathy with horses because he was physically and emotionally abused by his father when young, great film).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 18:54:51 GMT -5
Pilgrim is right, and the sensing of pain is not a psychological movement. It can be just a sensation. I'm still not convinced that such a stark division can be made. Certainly not in the normal conscious state, but it's interesting that I would say that under the right circumstances you could become so present to pain that contact isn't made. Whatever that means, hehe Sensation is often psychologically neutral. The feeling of the keys under your fingers doesn't start up some kind of psychological movement. (I assume)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 19:18:50 GMT -5
Well, I don't know, it's certainly not a position I advocate. There's more to be said here, because true awakening is the beginning of the end of what we commonly call experience, where experience is synonymous with samsara. But I'm gonna leave that for now.
Sounds like a good plan. The way we were messing with the posts, we lost the conversation, but I didn't have anything important to say anyway.
|
|