|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 12:57:36 GMT -5
I basically agree but I would say that even though animals don't have the existential fear, the suffering can be intense and pure in its form because they don't aggravate or add layers of existential fear to the suffering. It's just...suffering. It's not suffering AND mental desperation suffering. And in my words, I would say it is easy to be a human if there is no misidentification and false belief. What difference does misidentification and false belief make if suffering happens in the absence of those things? Well it would remove a lot of existential angst for a start. Also, the adult human mind tends to aggravate pain and suffering by fighting it, so at a bare minimum, if this fighting ceased, then so would the aggravating. Also, in exploring these issues, we give ourselves more possibility of finding the value in our experience, even if that experience is suffering. So there is the potential for peace amidst suffering, or gratitude, or appreciation. All good stuff really. But in my opinion, the real value comes from just living a more 'natural' kind of life. I know in the past I have talked a lot about love, peace, joy etc, but a key word in my vocabulary these days is 'natural', and suffering is a natural part of the human life.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 13:06:43 GMT -5
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. While I still think that pain is the felt component of pain, and suffering is more a long-term thing, I would still more likely buy into the above definition, anymore, than the definition of "suffering" as dissatisfaction with what is. yes okay. I think when mental suffering has been intense, and it has been for me at times in my life (and if I recall, you also had a tough period/s), it makes a lot of sense to create a clear distinction between pain and suffering. There is value in it. As time has gone on, and I've forgotten to an extent what it was like to mentally suffer intensely....rightly or wrongly... I've also softened on the distinction. Other things have become important to me over time. At one stage, it was all about resolving the mental pain, whereas these days, my attention is less on my own 'self'. I've gotten interested in the world again, and that probably also plays a role in why I have softened on the distinction. I can't look at the world and think...'those animals, or people, or babies aren't suffering'.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 13:26:33 GMT -5
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) This is a tough one, but ultimately the premise is that it isn't, and does, because they're interdependent, and because there's a kind of feedback loop going on at the subtlest, most imperceptible levels, which usually 'grows' into those more complex movements. To really get into this I'd need to go into dependant origination, and the nature of kamma, and lots of stuff that I would struggle to elucidate. But normally speaking, merely to engage with sensuality (in its purest sense) reinforces dispositions that 'keep us anchored to samsara', which in it's entirety is subject to dukkha. Not a particularly satisfying response, I accept. Btw, it's perhaps worth taking this opportunity to highlight the fact that in Buddhism, they consider the nature of suffering much more holistically than we are tending to do here. What I mean is, in its entirety its considered to be a practically unfathomably broad and subtly nuanced issue. The Buddha is quoted as saying, I teach only three things, dukkha, the causes of dukkha, and the path to the end of dukkha, - that there was much more he could talk about but those things were of lesser import, and would mostly just prove to be distraction from what is really the only issue of significance. In fact we can consider the entire Pali canon as essentially being an extension of the Truth of dukkha, which as I say is both the cornerstone of the whole teaching, and the only issue deemed only to be of any real import. And I think the Pali canon alone extends to about 11 times the size of the bible and gospels, because viewed holistically, it covers 'the All', both the deathless, and the manifest, which as we can already see from the directions of the thread, all comes into play when the issue is considered in earnest.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 13:43:48 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. I think perhaps we're approaching self-awareness differently with regard to this topic. Yours seems to be more along the lines of 'awareness of self', whereas I'm talking about something much more fundamental. For example, for me, awareness (in the purest sense, as Source) is only really ever shorthand for 'the awareness that is aware of itself'. So that's a given, and then it just becomes a matter of what is the necessary criteria (apparatus/faculties) over and above that for suffering to arise, and I say both that, that criteria is less than you envisage (i.e. that capacity for sophisticated conceptualisation isn't necessary), and that you are underestimating the criteria that is present in the instances we've been discussing on this thread, (i.e. that the minds, and modus operandi, of babies, and animals are already somewhat more complex than is being credited). edit. I guess I'm also saying there's already a basic degree of identification there in the form of latent tendencies which effectively transcends the incarnation itself, and which is always there prior to true liberation. Although I can understand how that might be hard to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 14:12:43 GMT -5
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? As I say, not really desire in the usual sense. Through clear seeing it was acknowledged and accepted that these things come about quite naturally as part and parcel of the condition, they're a biological imperative, and initially, as a part of the middle way (between the two extremes of asceticism and hedonism), servicing the body is seen as a duty, toward the end of unnecessary suffering. Healthy body = healthy mind, which is conducive to liberation. However, it's said he had no preference between picking rotten fruit out of the gutter, or dining out on a banquet laid on for him by local nobleman who sought his guidance, and I don't know if you're familiar with the story of the Buddha's death, but the narrative goes that, he knowingly ate spoilt pork served to him by a jealous cousin which eventually led to his death, because ultimately there was no real attachment, or aversion to these things, and he'd already imparted all he could to the sangha. Incidentally the story has strong parallels with that of the Nazarene knowingly being betrayed by Judas, and going to his death, (although I understand he had a penchant for loaves and fish and wine.) Anyway, to cut to the chase, we're heading towards a bit of an impasse here, which is essentially, what is the nature of nibbana? - which is said to be is incomprehensible to those who haven't apprehended it. And which will then beg the question, how can you know if another isn't suffering, which ties in with the conversation I was having with L. In the final analysis, my position will be come back to me when you're prepared to eat this spoiled pork I've prepared for you, and your future's so bright you hafta wear shades, hehe. What I won't be conceding is that you can be as enlightened as a Buddha, but still get to go out dancing at the weekends.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 14:19:18 GMT -5
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? Well, in the way one isn't just ethereally floating around in a vacuum having insights I suppose. Really knowledge is the basis of insight, which is where knowledge is 'converted' to wisdom. Even direct knowing at least straddles the experiential realm. In the, 'using a thorn to remove a thorn' metaphor, the thorns would be classed as experiential. Put another way, there is no prodigal son without the fall from grace. True enough, but as a rule of thumb it's fairly safe to assume it's the one that isn't me.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 14:23:18 GMT -5
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. Sure, those definitions can be problematic. That's why dukkha, as the range of unsatisfactoriness to suffering, as the entire mass of stress and suffering, applied in context, works much betterer for me.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 14:29:32 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. I thought it seemed about half, and half, and that some are equivocal.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 14:30:49 GMT -5
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? Liberation from samsara - the end of rebirth. Nibbana, then paranibbana. That sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 15:19:22 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. 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. I appreciate the share, it's a hard one to address. In that instance the pain, or discomfort doesn't fit with the narrow definition of suffering, but at the same time it's not uncommon for folks to refer to themselves as 'suffering' in such instances, even if there's little resistance to it, (or even an attraction.) No doubt pain, and pleasure are closely intertwined. I'm not sure if it's in keeping with what's commonly meant by dukkha, or not, but I suspect that ultimately the situation might tie in with what I started to talk about here. I shall need to reflect on it. Honestly, I'm just glad you didn't share the one about you in the sex dungeon to make the point. I've been enjoying the ol' slopestyle on the winter olympics actually. Red Gerard did great!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 15:47:40 GMT -5
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. Ultimately it's about utterly extinguishing the causes upon which suffering arises, and the cessation is final, so it's not really relative, or temporary. We just disagree about whether that process can happen incrementally. In Buddhism, they talk about a gradual path which extends across many lifetimes. Change no, reveal yes, (although that last part ties in with this, and the realisation itself isn't a process as such.)
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 16:31:29 GMT -5
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". You mean negating beliefs? That's not easy by a long stretch. In his heart of hearts, the most devoted theist knows his beliefs have no foundation. As such, I don't really need to convince anyone here that we don't know anything. It's more about being honest with ourselves. I don't see it quite like this. Wisdom comes through experience, knowledge, and insight, but whilst wisdom may include seeing clearly the limits of knowledge, and the folly of beliefs, it isn't the same as saying we can't ever really know anything. After all, Truth is timeless, and that is the basis of wisdom, and a lot can be derived from that.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 13, 2018 16:43:45 GMT -5
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. Surely yes, or it wouldn't be bawling it's eyes out?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 18:25:56 GMT -5
At any given moment, one can either be suffering or experiencing joy. Not both. Well I disagree. For example, giving birth can likely come with suffering and joy (I can't personally testify though lol). There are lots of examples, but that does seem quite an obvious one. Suffering isn't the bugaboo or bogey man that it is often painted to be. It CAN be (and I can testify that for myself), particularly when it is experienced as being choiceless and without any value. At its worst, suffering is pure hell. At its most mild, it isn't much more than empathizing with someone else's suffering. I mean, our friend gopal says he suffers when he watches Game Of Thrones lol, but he also enjoys it I assume. I agree giving birth is a poor example (for either of us to use) but I would assume there is suffering during the birthing process, followed by joy at greeting her child into the world. If Gopal is enjoying the show, he's not suffering. If L is plotting the maximum ski time possible, he's not suffering.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 18:32:47 GMT -5
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. No, intuition CAN be wrong of course, but when intuition repeatedly and insistently says the same thing, it is silly to ignore it. Even if it WAS wrong, to ignore a persistent intuitive signal would not be of benefit. Just as you know that other humans and animals are perceiving, you know when a baby is suffering. I am often accused of over complicating, but this is one of the simplest things in the world, and anything else is intellectualizing and over-spiritualizing. My experience with intuition is that it never insists. Mind insists.
|
|