|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 19:41:07 GMT -5
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. The 'one thing' can be compound. For example, the masochist is experiencing pleasure and pain as 'one thing'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 19:42:51 GMT -5
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. what? A person who needs to be listened to? I didn't say anything about listening to a person. Otherwise yes, when we don't listen to intuition it is usually because we are rationalizing. That's why, when you intuit that a baby is suffering, and ignore that intuition, the mind is being used in a subtle way to block the intuition.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:47:43 GMT -5
Dissatisfaction is not suffering. Do you suffer when you write a post that you're not really satisfied with, or when you get hungry? Would you expect that to end with SR? That's Andy's conclusion as well; that any kind of pain or dissatisfaction is suffering. Yes, but I don't believe that suffering exists alone, there can be other things going on. I ran a half marathon when I was young and fit and there was some suffering, but there were other things going on as well. There was enjoyment of the experience, there was a sense of satisfaction because it was fulfilling my sense of purpose, and the adrenaline probably added some level of pleasure too. We're quite complex. Sometimes the suffering and pleasure buttons can be pressed at the same time. It's okay to suffer sometimes. Sometimes it's worth a bit of suffering to have something else. Other times....no. When you focused on the pain you suffered. When you focused on the satisfaction, you felt joy. You didn't do both at once.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 19:49:39 GMT -5
Yes, but I don't believe that suffering exists alone, there can be other things going on. I ran a half marathon when I was young and fit and there was some suffering, but there were other things going on as well. There was enjoyment of the experience, there was a sense of satisfaction because it was fulfilling my sense of purpose, and the adrenaline probably added some level of pleasure too. We're quite complex. Sometimes the suffering and pleasure buttons can be pressed at the same time. It's okay to suffer sometimes. Sometimes it's worth a bit of suffering to have something else. Other times....no. When you focused on the pain you suffered. When you focused on the satisfaction, you felt joy. You didn't do both at once. That might happen in part, but equally, feelings can be multi layered and complex. We're quite rarely just experiencing only one thing. A mild suffering will be accompanied by something else. Whereas suffering alone is nothing but pure hell, and not many people are experiencing pure hell.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 14, 2018 19:53:42 GMT -5
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? You and laughter, hehe Andrew and I clearly disagree, and the rest I can't really make much sense of where they stand if I'm being honest. Pretty sure ZD takes the same view as you, although he hasn't gotten involved in this thread, and sdp seems to be pretty vehemently against the idea. Beingist popped up, and seemed a bit equivocal. Not entirely sure where reefs stands at the moment, but I think he was saying something along the lines of the potential is there, but it actually happening is rare, due to the absence of resistance. I wasn't really keeping a tally, but I have a suspicion your position would appeal most to nonduality advocates, and this being a nonduality forum at heart, I guess I woulda half expected the general consensus would be in favour of your position if anything. But idk, maybe we're mostly dilettantes anyway, and it sounds like that hasn't been your experience, and you get involved more than I do. Opening an anonymous poll might give us an idea, if anyone's really interested.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 19:59:16 GMT -5
Surely yes, or it wouldn't be bawling it's eyes out? All baby animals cry in pain, for food - to alert the parent, basically, but if we take the view that pain in itself is not suffering, and one need not be in pain to suffer, then we have to consider suffering as sensational, but with the addition of reactivity - meaning even very pleasurable sensations could be suffering in the form of clinging. But when we go into the deeper meditation we might realise that we aren't actually clinging to the sensation consciousness, but rather, the sensational realm which is 'known'. At this point there is no 'progress' it is the all of nothing, and there is just one step to release all that is known. We usually fear because we don't know if we'll 'come back' to what we know, and that's how we cling to the known. In life we recognise the fractions of clinging, but we seldom realise the 'be all and end all' of the completely unknown. The infant simply hasn't acquired any knowledge, has no referential framework, and such things as clinging/resisting appear to be there because of the physical survival reflex, but actually can't occur in retrospect (in the aftermath we call reactivity) because there are no references formed in the memory that constitute 'knowledge'.
[/u] Yes, and the core of that referential framework is a 'me' who struggles, a 'me' to whom the events are happening, a 'me' that has a problem to be solved. Without that 'me' none of the struggle or blame or problem solving makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2018 20:13:07 GMT -5
All baby animals cry in pain, for food - to alert the parent, basically, but if we take the view that pain in itself is not suffering, and one need not be in pain to suffer, then we have to consider suffering as sensational, but with the addition of reactivity - meaning even very pleasurable sensations could be suffering in the form of clinging. But when we go into the deeper meditation we might realise that we aren't actually clinging to the sensation consciousness, but rather, the sensational realm which is 'known'. At this point there is no 'progress' it is the all of nothing, and there is just one step to release all that is known. We usually fear because we don't know if we'll 'come back' to what we know, and that's how we cling to the known. In life we recognise the fractions of clinging, but we seldom realise the 'be all and end all' of the completely unknown. The infant simply hasn't acquired any knowledge, has no referential framework, and such things as clinging/resisting appear to be there because of the physical survival reflex, but actually can't occur in retrospect (in the aftermath we call reactivity) because there are no references formed in the memory that constitute 'knowledge'.
[/u] Yes, and the core of that referential framework is a 'me' who struggles, a 'me' to whom the events are happening, a 'me' that has a problem to be solved. Without that 'me' none of the struggle or blame or problem solving makes sense. [/quote] I think you are over simplifying the baby's experience again. Watch this one...notice the intention, the figuring out, the frustration, the pleasure. (this one is easy to watch because there's no baby suffering with colic)
|
|
|
Post by freejoy on Feb 14, 2018 22:02:02 GMT -5
I learned something new lately. Enlightened non-people have egos too. hehehe
I must have really caused some to grow beyond their limitations!
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 14, 2018 22:25:40 GMT -5
All baby animals cry in pain, for food - to alert the parent, basically, but if we take the view that pain in itself is not suffering, and one need not be in pain to suffer, then we have to consider suffering as sensational, but with the addition of reactivity - meaning even very pleasurable sensations could be suffering in the form of clinging. But when we go into the deeper meditation we might realise that we aren't actually clinging to the sensation consciousness, but rather, the sensational realm which is 'known'. At this point there is no 'progress' it is the all of nothing, and there is just one step to release all that is known. We usually fear because we don't know if we'll 'come back' to what we know, and that's how we cling to the known. In life we recognise the fractions of clinging, but we seldom realise the 'be all and end all' of the completely unknown. The infant simply hasn't acquired any knowledge, has no referential framework, and such things as clinging/resisting appear to be there because of the physical survival reflex, but actually can't occur in retrospect (in the aftermath we call reactivity) because there are no references formed in the memory that constitute 'knowledge'.
Yes, and the core of that referential framework is a 'me' who struggles, a 'me' to whom the events are happening, a 'me' that has a problem to be solved. Without that 'me' none of the struggle or blame or problem solving makes sense. yes, there is always a self reference entailed in the reactivity, but the 'me structure' is the reactive dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 22:33:34 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 . Pain in reflection of suffering is irrelevant . Suffering is the foundation for the experience of pain as an identified self . There is no point arguing the differences between pain and suffering when the foundation is suffering . Beyond suffering is beyond any self associations . That's eggzaklee it. How do you know babies and bunnies identify themselves with the body and mind and feel it's limitations?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 22:44:13 GMT -5
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 .You think thirst requires identification with body and mind?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 23:16:03 GMT -5
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. Your intuition tells you that? It didn't have anything to do with my one word response?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2018 23:33:42 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. Interesting article. This is what the author calls level 0 self awareness: "Pet owners know that placing a mirror in a canary cage is substitute for companionship and triggers in the bird melodious courtship songs. It is also the level expressed by dogs, cats, or monkeys facing mirrors and posturing endless aggressive displays to their own specular image as if they were confronting a creature other than themselves."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2018 0:24:17 GMT -5
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. That may explain why some here tend to type long posts.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2018 0:25:36 GMT -5
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. Okay.
|
|