|
Post by lolly on Feb 14, 2018 5:51:22 GMT -5
You identify with yourself with the body and mind, feel it's limitations, and suffer.Ramana .. This reflects what I spoke of earlier . Babies and bunnies have a self reference so therefore suffer . The counter argument is contrary for precisely the opposite reason. It basically just says if there is identification there is suffering. Both sides of the argument rest on this same premise.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 14, 2018 6:27:47 GMT -5
You identify with yourself with the body and mind, feel it's limitations, and suffer.Ramana .. This reflects what I spoke of earlier . Babies and bunnies have a self reference so therefore suffer . The counter argument is contrary for precisely the opposite reason. It basically just says if there is identification there is suffering. Both sides of the argument rest on this same premise. How I see it is you can't be aware of this world and be aware of pain felt without identifying self with what is perceived . Even if you are a super duper guru saying that this body is not the real self, there is the identification had while of the body that there is a real self beyond the body . You suffer because you are aware of yourself of the mind-body compared with not . An injured dog would have no inclination to lick one's wound if one didn't associate the wound with the need address it . Pain in this respect wouldn't be pain, because there would be no associations had of pain being felt by you, or by what you identify you as and what pain is . This is something andy touched upon . A dog would therefore walk around not relating the torn limbs with itself, it would not associate the pain with itself . It would not drink water when thirsty because there would be no association with itself and the thirst felt . There would be no thirst, there would not be the sense of a thirst quenched or a satisfied belly .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 8:13:48 GMT -5
I had to google 'iteration'....it means 'repetitive'....? But it sounds like you mean that biological self-awareness is more of a gradation than a 'either has it or not'. If I'm understanding you right, and biological self awareness is associated with what you call 'suffering' and all animals have some degree of bio self awareness, then that would mean they have the capacity to suffer. I'm just saying I don't see a sharp division between animals that suffer and animals that don't. Me neither, and that's one of the key points I've been making. There's no sharp division between suffering and no suffering, so speaking of suffering in terms of having a sharp division is contextually very limited (but that's not to say it is without value).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 8:14:25 GMT -5
You do, though you may not know you make them. Is that what your intuition tells you? That's what reasoning tells me based on what you have said.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 8:14:50 GMT -5
The mind is involved in the sensation of touch, and the body is involved in the experience of existential angst (there could be chemical imbalances and all sorts of things going on). On the other hand, if for the purpose of a discussion you want to talk about existential angst as a problem of mind, that's really fine with me. There's a reason we use two words instead of one. of course.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 8:16:00 GMT -5
I'm confused because it sounds like what you are suggesting is realized is at odds with intuition. Nope. Well I don't understand but my intuition here is that you aren't currently inspired to talk (at least not when you were writing those messages), so I won't persist.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 10:15:01 GMT -5
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. Does it excite you when you feel your fingers pressing against the keys or not? We can't draw a stark line between body and mind, but for the sake of understanding the subtleties of suffering we need to make the distinction.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 10:30:17 GMT -5
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. You don't come out of the womb understanding yourself to be separate from the world, (innocence) though you had the capacity to do so. (self awareness) Likewise, you didn't pop out understanding calculus, though you had the mental sophistication to do so. There is a period of mental/psychological development involved. The concept of a separate self is something you needed to grok. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 10:48:12 GMT -5
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. It's not possible to go through life without any wants, or to never have them go unfulfilled. Redefining desire to make those unavoidable desires go away is the wrong approach. Having desires is fine and does not need to lead to suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 11:40:18 GMT -5
The nail on the head. ZD juxtaposed Ramana, Kabir, and Laughter, appropriately. Though his head might explode. I have a very nasty parrot named Sunny. For anyone who fancies themselves beyond suffering, I invite you to come stick your finger in his cage to see just how resolute your belief is that you are not your body. This is the real test for those who fancy themselves enlightened or whatever other word you want to call it. I'm with Robert Adams on that one: if they claim to be enlightened, run the other way.
In the words of that great homicide detective, Joe Kenda: "Guns don't kill people and people don't kill, emotions kill." Emotions trump logic and every form of detachment, any technique, any yoga.
Deny emotions, subdue them, out smart them at your peril. They will bite you hard. The only thing to do with emotions, is to feel them. For me anything else is a recipe for disaster. The dark night of the soul is unavoidable. It comes for all of us.
Realizing who you are is necessarily painful and messy. We are not reason or logic. These are contructs, products of the mind. Reality is a hurricane that will blow away any wall you erect to defend yourself, spiritual or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2018 12:29:08 GMT -5
The nail on the head. ZD juxtaposed Ramana, Kabir, and Laughter, appropriately. Though his head might explode. I have a very nasty parrot named Sunny. For anyone who fancies themselves beyond suffering, I invite you to come stick your finger in his cage to see just how resolute your belief is that you are not your body. This is the real test for those who fancy themselves enlightened or whatever other word you want to call it. I'm with Robert Adams on that one: if they claim to be enlightened, run the other way. In the words of that great homicide detective, Joe Kenda: "Guns don't kill people and people don't kill, emotions kill." Emotions trump logic and every form of detachment, any technique, any yoga. Deny emotions, subdue them, out smart them at your peril. They will bite you hard. The only thing to do with emotions, is to feel them. For me anything else is a recipe for disaster. The dark night of the soul is unavoidable. It comes for all of us. Realizing who you are is necessarily painful and messy. We are not reason or logic. These are contructs, products of the mind. Reality is a hurricane that will blow away any wall you erect to defend yourself, spiritual or otherwise. If you know how to pick out and order some of those verbal bits, that's kinda what is being said. Well, except for the juxtaposing of writers and equating physical and existential suffering parts. Perhaps this scholarly article on 5 levels of self-awareness will give greater context and/or subtlety to explore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 12:41:08 GMT -5
The nail on the head. ZD juxtaposed Ramana, Kabir, and Laughter, appropriately. Though his head might explode. I have a very nasty parrot named Sunny. For anyone who fancies themselves beyond suffering, I invite you to come stick your finger in his cage to see just how resolute your belief is that you are not your body. This is the real test for those who fancy themselves enlightened or whatever other word you want to call it. I'm with Robert Adams on that one: if they claim to be enlightened, run the other way. In the words of that great homicide detective, Joe Kenda: "Guns don't kill people and people don't kill, emotions kill." Emotions trump logic and every form of detachment, any technique, any yoga. Deny emotions, subdue them, out smart them at your peril. They will bite you hard. The only thing to do with emotions, is to feel them. For me anything else is a recipe for disaster. The dark night of the soul is unavoidable. It comes for all of us. Realizing who you are is necessarily painful and messy. We are not reason or logic. These are contructs, products of the mind. Reality is a hurricane that will blow away any wall you erect to defend yourself, spiritual or otherwise. If you know how to pick out and order some of those verbal bits, that's kinda what is being said. Well, except for the juxtaposing of writers and equating physical and existential suffering parts. Perhaps this scholarly article on 5 levels of self-awareness will give greater context and/or subtlety to explore. I know. I was responding to the first post on this thread by Laughter and agreeing with what he said. My bad. Should have quoted him.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2018 12:45:58 GMT -5
If you know how to pick out and order some of those verbal bits, that's kinda what is being said. Well, except for the juxtaposing of writers and equating physical and existential suffering parts. Perhaps this scholarly article on 5 levels of self-awareness will give greater context and/or subtlety to explore. I know. I was responding to the first post on this thread by Laughter and agreeing with what he said. My bad. Should have quoted him. Oh, then maybe it's also my bad for misinterpreting and/or not being diligent enough to check out the references. All good.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2018 12:58:52 GMT -5
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?? I was within 20-25 meters at times, hehe. Mind you, I had read that California black bears typically are more herbivorous than carnivorous, though they will happily empty a picnic basket of ribs when given the chance. Sora read the same thing, but she was pretty much heading the other way once I spotted her/him, hehe. She came back and whispered her POV on the situation, but I just kept taking photos, totally digging eye contact in stillness (except for camera moves when it wasn't looking). Sora eventually settled into the situation too, not moving, and just watching. The bear was just going from log after log, tossing this and that, looking for food. Eventually, it settled down, rolled around on the grass, cleaning itself, stopping occasionally to stare up into the sky, and more or less moved on to taking a nap from what I could tell. We quietly walked on.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2018 13:21:52 GMT -5
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. The focus is on looking "inward" and at the apparent constructs of the mind play, rather than "outward" to the apparent world at large. So, in that respect, I do not agree. If you cannot let go of the condition of usefulness or appropriateness as stated here, then there is a distinction that you are either overlooking and/or do not intuit clearly.
|
|