|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 19:25:35 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. I'm saying animals that are biologically self aware have the capacity to suffer. Both are a consequence of a relatively sophisticated mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 19:29:24 GMT -5
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. The premise is, he didn't want anything. Certainly not in the usual sense of 'desire'. He didn't want to eat when he was hungry? Sleep when he was tired?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 12, 2018 20:15:55 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. I've been waiting for you to come back, so I could post this picture of my first bear encounter in the wild. Welcome back, and I hope your birthday goes well. You ain't no spring chicken anymore, you're a bear. Bengst the Bear, oh yes.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 12, 2018 20:52:17 GMT -5
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. To further the conversation along to one beyond basic semantics, in my opinion, it is necessary to refocus. What is essentially discussed here typically revolves around a yet unknown and/or unconscious structure (for most) that gives rise to a sense of alienation and/or desire to want to be free or at peace. I think you can agree that the senses or desires often then give rise to all sorts of relatively unhealthy or inhumane reactions we see happening in the world. So be it, but there is something that can be done that might shed a better light on the issues at hand. Surely we can assume that if there is a pill one can take, a plaster we can use, or a mode of action that can alleviate physical suffering for an individual, group, or race, we are likely able to be consciously aware of the cause/effect, however complex it can get. But, that is not really getting to the core of existential suffering, lack of being at one, or being out of alignment with what is. It has been put forth that exploring the deeper questions and becoming ever more conscious of the ways mind moves, contracts, or goes unconscious might increase the chances of the fruit ripening and falling. Awakening to and (hopefully) waking up from that illusionary sense of separation is the turning on of the light needed to see suffering for what it is, and not just its shadows. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 21:45:15 GMT -5
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. Yes, and no. Firstly I'm not one who subscribes to this notion experience is no use in determining the truth of a matter. For me It's overstatement, because although insight could be described as the key 'component', experience as a process is inescapably part and parcel of that occurrence (which isn't to say insight itself is a process). There's also something to be said for Andrews position about when the visceral intuitive directly known witnessing of suffering in another, doesn't match, or fit in with how we've boxed the nature of suffering. And while we can all agree what I said in the underlined is the only real issue, it seems we're unlikely to all agree about when and where that is actually happening, hehe. Having said that I didn't bother to watch the video. Experience is part of insight? How? When one's intuitive insight doesn't match what someone elses intuitive insight says, then one of them is wrong. It doesn't say which one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 22:40:20 GMT -5
If pain always results in suffering, the word 'pain' can also be used to refer to suffering, and the suffering word becomes obsolete. That's how assassinations work. Not really, you can have emotional suffering, terror, depression etc. All forms of suffering that we might want to distinguish from physical pain, or distress. Then you would have physical suffering and emotional suffering, or physical pain and emotional pain, depending on which word you want to assassinate.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 22:45:11 GMT -5
Well then, is the only way to end suffering to end pain? The latter is a form or the former, and the way to end it involves removing the conditions upon which it arises. This does get into a bit of a grey area when we take it to extremes, such as, as far as a situation like liberation with life-force remaining, to say the least. But any disagreement there probably won't be about whether such a state is possible, just about what it would entail. The problem is that virtually no-one here believes that SR is the end of suffering resulting from the end of the belief in the sufferer. Nothing can be done about that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 22:49:50 GMT -5
Even Buddha who says there is an end to suffering? It's not more likely that us dudes on a speeratchual forum are actually the ones who are misinformed? Again, it's not really about whether there is an end to suffering, more about different views on just what that would entail, i.e. the hallmarks or characteristics of such a situation. To be clear, I'm not really talking about behaviourism there as such, but I'm afraid I can't really summarise this succinctly. So there IS a way out of suffering? If pain is suffering and not getting what you want is suffering, how would that be possible?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 22:54:16 GMT -5
The reason Andy makes pain equal to suffering is so that we can be sure nobody dismisses another's suffering on the basis that it may be just pain sensation. They're not the same thing, but they are closely related, and the reason I am describing the relationship is so that the experience of babies and animals is NOT dismissed. And I am still fine to discuss the particular kinds of struggles that adult humans deal with. I'm literally arguing one thing here, and that is that it's not okay to redefine suffering to suit you. If you really want to redefine it within a small context, go ahead, but let's be clear of the assumptions of that definition and context, which is basically that all suffering is highly conceptual and abstract, that the body and mind have little to no connection, and that pain serves no useful physiological function. I don't understand why any of those assumptions have to be made just to say pain is not suffering.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 22:58:24 GMT -5
No I mean sensing is a movement of mind. So the body has no physical senses?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 23:04:37 GMT -5
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. That suffering cannot occur without a 'me' structure is the realization that started all this. That realization doesn't particularly please me and is problematic in some ways, but that's irrelevant in terms of the validity of the realization. (I don't have an agenda regarding it)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 23:06:07 GMT -5
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. My point was, we can't discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 12, 2018 23:06:37 GMT -5
Tolle once said that people have only three options when they are presented with a situation that is intolerable: they can change the situation, walk away from it, or accept it. I believe that most humans are capable of all three of these option but the real stress in knowing which one to choose lol. Does a woman accept that her husband beats here? Does she try and change herself, or her husband? Or does she walk away? It's just not easy being human sometimes. I think Tolle's 3 options can get us along a little further in this discussion about suffering. Given that most people are afraid of dying, that leaves them with only 2 options - changing the situation or accepting it. And given that most also don't know how they create their own experiences, that leaves them with practically just 1 option - accepting it. And so, as Thoreau said, most people lead lives of quiet desperation. Now, the animal is not afraid of dying and the same seems to apply to babies. And as A-H and Seth assure us, from the non-physical, there are no regrets if someone should cut out early. That's why I would say even though animals have the capacity to suffer, they rarely do because they have no resistance to the walk away option. They relax into the inevitable and let nature take its course. Choosing is always easy when you are in touch with your inner guidance. But it can border on self-torture when you only have your intellect to rely on. So I would say it's easy to be a human, but not easy to be a person.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 12, 2018 23:18:32 GMT -5
Well then, is the only way to end suffering to end pain? The latter is a form or the former, and the way to end it involves removing the conditions upon which it arises. This does get into a bit of a grey area when we take it to extremes, such as, as far as a situation like liberation with life-force remaining, to say the least. But any disagreement there probably won't be about whether such a state is possible, just about what it would entail. Well, I disagree. The undeniable fact is that folks willingly endure all sorts of physical pain, and sometimes, quite joyfully so. Here, I can't resist making this point with a personal story. In my ski bum phase I had the day down to a science, especially at my favorite spot. You see, the name of the game, is, time on the slope. I had the perfect nook in the base lodge picked out for early-afternoon access to hooks so I could hang a shirt to dry, knew exactly what I was gonna have for lunch (no gratuitous fats, no sugars, just enough fluids -- but no more), had an optimized system for what I'd carry on my person, and would pattern my movements around the trail system in such a way as to maximize the chance for as many runs possible. The strategy is to get there as early as you can, take only those breaks that the body absolutely demands, and then literally race the lifts at the end of the day before they'd stop spinning. So one day near the end of my tenure it's late afternoon with less than an hour to go before closing. I have this calculus running in my head that by then was completely intuitive and required no computation: the lift with the greatest vertical took a little less than 10 minutes on the trip, and if I really pushed it I could get back down to the bottom in a little over 5. On this day I was off out on the perimeter of the place, which is quite a sprawl, and I knew it would take some time to get back to the base area. My feet were screaming, both from the confinement of the boots and the cold. My back was stiff from all the banging on the bumps, my inner layer was soaked with perspiration and on the chair, up in the wind, it took less than a minute to turn into clam-city. I was thirsty, tired, hungry, and I needed to take a leak. But I knew that stopping back at the base meant losing at least one run, maybe even two. The time it takes to kick off the ski's and walk into the place was 3 minutes in and of itself -- and that not accounting for the heightened need to lock your gear near the end of the day. There were plenty of days when the timing was just right ... where I'd go back out for that last 3/4 hour all nice and dry, comfs and recharged, and those are good memories too. But not on this day. At the top of the chair, I thought "ah ... the hell with it", started pole-ing like a fiend for the fix, and didn't stop until they roped off the line to the lift. It was glorious. Priceless. And epic.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 12, 2018 23:25:25 GMT -5
And this can happen with or without suffering. Equating suffering to the resistance to pain is, quite literally reducing suffering to an equation. An equation like that one is an example of thinking of a human being as a sort of a machine. To get wonky about it, the equation is true but the commutative law doesn't hold. Where there is suffering, there is always some resistance to some pain, but the resistance to pain isn't always suffering. The reason Andy makes pain equal to suffering is so that we can be sure nobody dismisses another's suffering on the basis that it may be just pain sensation. I sense more than that going on with this particular assassination. But it wasn't Andy that I perceived as having stated the equation that "suffering = pain + resistance". In fact, from gab-skimming, it seemed to me that was sort of a consensus that he opposed. And it's one that I'd oppose as well, at least, if it's not first qualified to the point of shredding the relative meaning to it.
|
|