|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2018 0:26:43 GMT -5
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 ... Well...yeah.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2018 0:32:19 GMT -5
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? I dunno. Seems more like need.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2018 0:37:28 GMT -5
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. You characterized it as an it that will insist until you heed it. Sounds like a person.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2018 0:48:36 GMT -5
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. 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) What's your point here?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 15, 2018 3:38:17 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? Compare the foundation of perceiving life through the mind-body experience and what you are beyond that . No-one is touching upon this point and it is the point pertaining to suffering . Can anyone else here relate to the differences between what you are that is not within experience of the mind-body and experiencing the mind-body? The foundation of a screaming babe in arms is not the same as beyond the screaming babe . The babe in arms is limited by it's experience . All experience is limited to that which can be experienced . What is also limiting is the limitation known or unknown in the moment pertaining the experience in reflection of one's self awareness . A babe in arms doesn't have to know that there is limitation placed upon themselves in relation to working out mathematical equations . The actual perception of this world via the mind-body construct is a form of suffering compared to not . Suffering only applies to one who is aware of themselves compared to not . Peeps have to have the comparison otherwise they can say that they are in this moment not suffering when they are, they are by that very suggestion that they are not .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 15, 2018 3:41:00 GMT -5
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? How else is one going to relate to what is happening in reflection of the belief they have pertaining to what they think they are?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2018 4:33:38 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? well you could have just been busy or something, but that wasnt my impression. (they werent one word responses I dont think )
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2018 4:34:25 GMT -5
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. You characterized it as an it that will insist until you heed it. Sounds like a person. lol maybe that is your experience of people. Maybe an alarm clock would have been a better example.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2018 4:39:09 GMT -5
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. 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) What's your point here? It shows the complexity of the baby, and that it isn't so different from adults. Intention, attachment to outcome, frustration at failure, pleasure at success. It all illustrates that the abstract 'me' concept isn't as significant to cognitive thought, feeling and suffering as you seem to be suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 15, 2018 7:47:12 GMT -5
Is the extreme of desire greed? I dunno. Seems more like need. What is mild greed called?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 15, 2018 12:26:47 GMT -5
I dunno. Seems more like need. What is mild greed called? "A little bit more".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 15, 2018 12:34:01 GMT -5
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? A young baby or an animal is not identified (the meaning used on ST's) with their body, they are their body. (If that seems like a contradiction, I could unfold it. Just throw in at the appropriate place, psychologically).
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 15, 2018 17:01:14 GMT -5
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. You mean like a predisposition or a propensity of sorts. I mean, it seems like all humans have the genetic makeup that includes a little twist, which is the crux at the core of seeking, no? What do you mean by this? Is it something new per se, or is it a re-cognition of what has been and will be eternal? No one is denying that conditioning continues to play out in the context of life. Perhaps what you're not intuiting is that realization can allow even more openness to feeling and/or acceptance when tinkering with ideas (depending on the context). There's a certain dance of beauty and intelligence that is more deeply appreciated and, on occasion, can leave one in awe. But yeah, that more conscious re-conditioning of the neural network in relation to and within existence, in the light of what is beyond context, does continue to play out. The self no longer applies as an actuality, so much, but we carry on. That's the dream thang.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 15, 2018 17:18:16 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. 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." Yeah, I thought it might be useful as a point of reference for this ongoing discussion. The references to gradual building in complexity, abstraction, and self-reference seemed pretty well spelled out. I also liked the terminology in the stages themselves which kind of link with much of the vocab used here: confusion, differentiation, situation/context, identification, permanence/ (impermanence, hehe), and self-consciousness. With a little more introspection and contemplation, it seems quite possible to clarify in more detail in one's life how the layers of unconscious conditioning, perceptions, actions, self-consciousness, etc, built up in the mirror of mind. As for a wee bit more reading, here are a couple of articles that help to see the interesting comparison-contrast in the quality of memory between animals and humans that might provide context for the discussion. Just passing them along. Animal MemoryHuman Memory
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2018 18:03:01 GMT -5
I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that dissatisfaction (or 'suffering') will continue after SR. 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. I'm not saying dissatisfaction is suffering. Rather, I'm asserting that the usual, non-dualist definition of suffering--indeed, your definition of suffering-- isn't my understanding of suffering (for that matter, neither is it the commonly understood definition of suffering). To understand your definition, I have to use another term, which, for lack of a better one, is dissatisfaction with what is. Not dissatisfaction in general. That said, and to get back to your earlier assertion, I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that dissatisfaction with what is ("suffering" to you) will continue after SR.
|
|