|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 14:08:46 GMT -5
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. One can still be invited to look inward at the constructs of mind without changing the definition to exclude babies and children from the potential of suffering. And actually, if we exclude animals and babies, we miss the important role that biological self-awareness plays in suffering, and ultimately, biological self-awareness can be seen to be a mind construct. So in limiting 'suffering' in the way you suggest, I don't believe we get to the very core of the nature of suffering, instead we have to talk about a particular KIND of thought, rather than looking at the nature of thought itself. The definition you suggest may be useful for initial spiritual seekers, by way of introducing the idea that suffering is more an internal job than we were often taught to believe, but....in the end, I would suggest that we have to go deeper, and maybe you are overlooking this, or not intuiting this clearly. In addition, although there is value in looking to mental thought patterns, there is an imbalance to the approach, because the body IS important. Someone that is suffering may do well to look at brain chemistry for example. Telling a schizophrenic to look at their thoughts probably isn't as useful as addressing the biology as a whole. There should be balance when talking about suffering, I don't see spiritual extremism as the way forward here.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2018 15:18:13 GMT -5
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. One can still be invited to look inward at the constructs of mind without changing the definition to exclude babies and children from the potential of suffering. And actually, if we exclude animals and babies, we miss the important role that biological self-awareness plays in suffering, and ultimately, biological self-awareness can be seen to be a mind construct. So in limiting 'suffering' in the way you suggest, I don't believe we get to the very core of the nature of suffering, instead we have to talk about a particular KIND of thought, rather than looking at the nature of thought itself. The definition you suggest may be useful for initial spiritual seekers, by way of introducing the idea that suffering is more an internal job than we were often taught to believe, but....in the end, I would suggest that we have to go deeper, and maybe you are overlooking this, or not intuiting this clearly. In addition, although there is value in looking to mental thought patterns, there is an imbalance to the approach, because the body IS important. Someone that is suffering may do well to look at brain chemistry for example. Telling a schizophrenic to look at their thoughts probably isn't as useful as addressing the biology as a whole. There should be balance when talking about suffering, I don't see spiritual extremism as the way forward here. Realizing the causation of suffering, however extreme you assume it to be, provides the clarity to use the mind as a better tool with which to see and work with the relative value of all the things you mention here. You deny that.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 14, 2018 15:28:01 GMT -5
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. My position remains, in a manner of speaking yes, but commonly, imperceptibly so. It's why prolonged sensory deprivation tends to have an adverse effect.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 14, 2018 15:32:52 GMT -5
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. I haven't been arguing against any of that, just the idea any of its necessary for an experience of suffering, I suppose. We're possibly talking at crossed porpoises now anyway. I haven't really got anything much to add to what I've already said, at least for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 14, 2018 15:35:56 GMT -5
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. It's not possible to go through life without having to service biological needs, for sure. I suppose we can call those needs desire, if you like ...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 15:42:19 GMT -5
One can still be invited to look inward at the constructs of mind without changing the definition to exclude babies and children from the potential of suffering. And actually, if we exclude animals and babies, we miss the important role that biological self-awareness plays in suffering, and ultimately, biological self-awareness can be seen to be a mind construct. So in limiting 'suffering' in the way you suggest, I don't believe we get to the very core of the nature of suffering, instead we have to talk about a particular KIND of thought, rather than looking at the nature of thought itself. The definition you suggest may be useful for initial spiritual seekers, by way of introducing the idea that suffering is more an internal job than we were often taught to believe, but....in the end, I would suggest that we have to go deeper, and maybe you are overlooking this, or not intuiting this clearly. In addition, although there is value in looking to mental thought patterns, there is an imbalance to the approach, because the body IS important. Someone that is suffering may do well to look at brain chemistry for example. Telling a schizophrenic to look at their thoughts probably isn't as useful as addressing the biology as a whole. There should be balance when talking about suffering, I don't see spiritual extremism as the way forward here. Realizing the causation of suffering, however extreme you assume it to be, provides the clarity to use the mind as a better tool with which to see and work with the relative value of all the things you mention here. You deny that. well, let me clear about what I deny. I deny that the adult human mind is THE cause of adult human suffering. Nevertheless I would say that starting from the presupposition that the mind is the cause of the suffering CAN be useful at times.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2018 17:36:57 GMT -5
Realizing the causation of suffering, however extreme you assume it to be, provides the clarity to use the mind as a better tool with which to see and work with the relative value of all the things you mention here. You deny that. well, let me clear about what I deny. I deny that the adult human mind is THE cause of adult human suffering. Nevertheless I would say that starting from the presupposition that the mind is the cause of the suffering CAN be useful at times. Good. So, it's neither unuseful nor inappropriate at times. Then, in your awareness of everything, what in the mind gives rise to the effect known as suffering?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 17:58:10 GMT -5
well, let me clear about what I deny. I deny that the adult human mind is THE cause of adult human suffering. Nevertheless I would say that starting from the presupposition that the mind is the cause of the suffering CAN be useful at times. Good. So, it's neither unuseful nor inappropriate at times. Then, in your awareness of everything, what in the mind gives rise to the effect known as suffering? Okay, so talking from within the context you are offering. In brief, I believe that misunderstanding and false belief give rise to suffering. This misunderstanding and false belief creates a consciousness of lack and conditionality. When a baby is born, the parent's consciousness...and more broadly, the collective consciousness.... is transmitted to the baby, though there may even be false belief stored in the dna. So I believe that by the time the noticeable 'I' concept arises at the age of 2, the 'damage' has already been done. I don't even see the 'I' concept as an intrinsic problem, but identification is problem, and I believe this identification happens as a kind of protective mechanism, a shell to protect the fragile baby/infant. So in my opinion, through experience, insight and realization, we release these misunderstandings, and begin to understand and experience ourselves, life and God in a new way. As new understandings are embodied, a new consciousness of abundance and unconditionality develops. We become more free, spontaneous and natural. There may still be suffering at times, but the existential suffering is gone. But although I understand insight and realization to be powerful and transformative, I also believe that embodiment is a process. For example, I can say that my understanding is pretty good these days (and my experience reflects this), but I wouldn't claim to always and totally embody those understandings. Old conditioned patterns still arise and play out. That's okay.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:09:55 GMT -5
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. I'm not sure how that works because that's my rule too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:13:34 GMT -5
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. So where's the half that agrees an infant doesn't hold a belief in a sufferer, and therefore doesn't suffer?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 14, 2018 19:15:18 GMT -5
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. Is the extreme of desire greed?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:16:44 GMT -5
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. You're not addressing my concern.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:24:08 GMT -5
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. Everything you think you know ultimately dissolved into nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:30:35 GMT -5
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. I think your mistaken that suffering has to exist alone. At its most intense, it can seem as if it does, and I can speak from personal experience on that. Most of the time though there is a level of suffering and other stuff going on. Hence, why that poet spoke of folks leading lives of quiet desperation, he's onto something. Many folks are suffering pretty much all the time, but it is a low grade suffering, and mixed with other qualities. Why do you believe that suffering has to exist alone? At any given time there's just one way that you feel. You don't feel two ways at once. Background stuff can and does affect how joyful you can be, but it doesn't mean that joy and suffering are both there at once.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:37:31 GMT -5
My experience with intuition is that it never insists. Mind insists. My experience of intuition is that it will insist until I heed it. Intuition isn't a person who needs to be listened to. You're just using mind to block your own knowing.
|
|