|
Post by Reefs on Feb 12, 2018 23:29:33 GMT -5
yeah that's all cool, and certainly I agree with investigating the nature of certain kinds of stresses and strains that humans experience (and which you described), and which animals/infants seem to experience much less, if at all. Linked to this, it seems to me that the human experience comes with a blessing and a curse in a particular regard. On one hand we are blessed with knowing that there is the (illusion of) choice. So if I have a pain, I can consider taking some medicine, or seeing a doctor, or any number of things that might resolve the pain....and this is a blessing that we can consciously and rationally consider our options. On the other hand, there are occasions when nothing one does will make pain go away, and yet we are cursed with the stress of continuing to seek a viable solution, rather than naturally and peacefully surrendering in the way an animal does to pain. The experience of being an apparent chooser is both great and awful. 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 her? Does she try and change herself, or her husband? Or does she walk away? It's just not easy being human sometimes. That is the only real solution. She can't actually stop her husband from beating her, not permanently. And certainly not with any space to become the grown woman that she can be. His need to control women with violence, will always resurface. Not necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 23:38:31 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. At any given moment, one can either be suffering or experiencing joy. Not both.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 12, 2018 23:38:42 GMT -5
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 Yes, no harm no foul, I enjoy the repartee. Those states and levels are undeniable in their observation, but that's only ever about relative mitigation of suffering, not it's end. For as long as the changes are relative, they are temporary. We can of course speak about and even analyze the causes of suffering, and this has uses both for helping people heal, and for a process of becoming conscious. But "what" you are, is uncaused, and no process can ever change or reveal .. "THAT".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 23:41:27 GMT -5
the same as the imagined self that you said isnt a self....? You asked, what's a self, and I said a self is imagination. What kind of word games are we playing now?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 12, 2018 23:45:04 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. 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. .. dude ... how far away was that??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 0:03:28 GMT -5
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? Your story is that your intuition is unquestionable, and therefore mine should say the same thing, so I must be dismissing it as imagination. It's a very creative story, but it's yours, not mine. I've watched you try to use your intuition over the years, and it always seems to be used in the service of your agendas. My intuition tells me that you would be better off ignoring it all together.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2018 0:05:16 GMT -5
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. Pleased to make your acquaintance, Mr. Cassandra. To plagiarize Kevin, this is perfectly so, but I'd go on to opine that belief is too unsubtle a notion to completely convey the core of the illusion. A belief is what is found, what can be challenged and explored, and it's what expresses, and completely defines the existential error. But if SR were as easy as putting a not in front of it, there's be alot more "SR peeps".
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 13, 2018 0:12:50 GMT -5
The main thing is an animal in pain isn't imagining any alternative (that it desires), so the very dynamic between aversion and craving isn't there. I think the same applies to infants because they haven't developed the 'knowledge of' alternative sensations, so they don't have anything the crave after, and they don't try to avoid the pain they feel. From my perspective, it's exactly the other way around. The baby and the animal both still know very well what well-being is and feels like and they very much desire it. Keep in mind that the baby sleeps most of the time and is still mostly focused in the non-physical. That's why the baby screams like an animal when in pain because it's such an extreme contrast to what it is used to. I'd even say the desire for well-being is particularity strong in the baby as compared to the adult. And there is also no resistance to that desire. That's why such a strong desire doesn't cause any additional problems. The adult, however, that's an entirely different story. Long story short: It's natural to desire well-being because well-being is your natural state. But I agree with your point that there's a lack of imagining as in adding an extra conceptual layer to what is happening right here right now. The dynamic is more to do with the response to the real lived experience, so the question is basically, does the infant resist the painful sensation. If so it brings up the dynamic of aversion to the sensation which is the desire to not have, which is also the desire for a more pleasant alternative. I argue that the infant has very little aversion/desire in response to the sensation, and that response is what constitutes 'resistance'. What you call a 'desire for well being' is more to do with what I consider as 'metta', which is a very basic wish for the well-being of all beings. It's probably not recognisable because it's isn't a sentimental thing, but it arises through the body/mind in an absence of the polarity of love/hate or aversion/desire or other dual paradigms.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 13, 2018 0:14:18 GMT -5
So it really amounts to a thought that represents or references self, like a self image, or even just a story that concludes with identification. I usually point out the mechanism by which this is perpetuated, because the mechanism is not other than the thing itself. The main reason is people can see fairly easily the reactivity when pain arises and quite easily understand that what occurs in addition to the sensation is causing a lot of suffering. We can fairly easily notice these additions, and hence see 'the cause' of misery and how we generate it for ourselves. The caveat is, there is a body/mind central to identity, so lolly does have to see himself relative to the experience, just as you imagine a lolly whom you address and I imagine an Enigma respectively, and all this has some limitation, which can't endure anything and still survive. When the experience reaches a certain extreme, the reactivity befuddles the conscious aspect so the experience is 'cut off' so to speak. This is why we take things to their limitations and have to keep an even keel, so we can endure greater extremes henceforth. Would this apply to the energy flows you experience? In the case of an infant, it is the same in the sense that at a high degree of extreme sensation the reactive dynamic kicks in, as an infant isn't really the 'idealised being' we tend to example them as. They still have disturbed minds and they still perpetuate that self from moment to moment, or even from the last life to the next. It's just that they haven't formed the memory in their neural systems of the infant body in terms of 'known imagery'. The thing is, it's all perpetuated in an energy. The structure itself isn't continuous as such, as no part of it endures from one moment to the next, but the force which created the last body/mind also creates the current, so the present lolly bears characteristics of that just expired. Thus even though it's a whole new lolly, the past lollies amounted to it. I'm only the byproduct of all my past, and the will to live, the 'craving' to experience, perpetuates such a regeneration. For this reason I think awareness of the volition (which is awareness of the reactivities - action/reaction) is the best form of self awareness. In the meditation, then, whatever sensation arises, just know it as it is - and if (or I should say 'when') reactivity arises, then notice how it 'disturbs' the tranquility of inner space, and how such disturbance is the essence of suffering. For most it should be really easy because the mind is reacting non stop, continually making self references, and people will find as they are the one aware, and not the one reacting, it isn't really themselves which reacts, and subsequentially, acts. Then one might suddenly realise the one who reacts only exists in the aftermath of sensation, and this is what sustains that 'me structure'. Sorry, I didn't follow much of that. Sometimes I forget it's the twitter generation and post more that 100 wds
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 0:14:28 GMT -5
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. Conceptual self identification seems to begin around age two.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 0:18:12 GMT -5
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). And again you want to present film evidence of suffering. You can't watch an animal and know what's going on subjectively, and for the same reason you can't even know if they are experiencing at all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:06:45 GMT -5
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. where, or how, do you draw the line when it comes to animals between biologically self aware, and biologically self unaware (or whatever the opposite is)? Do you think some have the 'me' concept like human two year olds?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:08:28 GMT -5
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. for sure, I have no problem at all with discussing the human existential struggle, or the particular types of suffering that adult humans deal with, it's a useful exploration. My only point here has been that it's not useful or appropriate to redefine suffering to exclude babies and animals. Better to specify the kind of suffering that we want to explore.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:11:11 GMT -5
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. no no, THOSE assumptions are behind the idea that babies and animals don't suffer. I agree that pain and suffering are not the same thing. Suffering is the felt component of pain. I don't think you read what I say, but then I say a lot sometimes, so maybe you skim.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:12:24 GMT -5
No I mean sensing is a movement of mind. So the body has no physical senses? Of course it does, but they involve movement of mind too. The body and mind are one system. This is why I said that in order to say that babies and animals don't suffer, you have to assume that body and mind are basically disconnected.
|
|