|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2018 18:05:47 GMT -5
What about the masochist? If the masochist is enjoying the sensation, he's not suffering, right? Right, well, this is why I cannot hold your definition of suffering. A masochist finds joy in suffering (or, at least, the commonly understood definition of suffering). Otherwise, there could be no such thing as masochism.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2018 18:14:03 GMT -5
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'. I definitely rez with that last bit, but, again, it all boils down to definitions. During my 'dark night' (for lack of any other brief descriptive), I was most definitely suffering (by any definition). Once I finally gave up, though, I realized that the psychological anguish was my own doing--the inevitably result of dissatisfaction with what is. Anymore, while I don't see the whole world as suffering (by any definition), I do see some genuine suffering (by common definition), and a whole lot of dissatisfaction with what is.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 15, 2018 20:31:19 GMT -5
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'. I definitely rez with that last bit, but, again, it all boils down to definitions. During my 'dark night' (for lack of any other brief descriptive), I was most definitely suffering (by any definition). Once I finally gave up, though, I realized that the psychological anguish was my own doing--the inevitably result of dissatisfaction with what is. Anymore, while I don't see the whole world as suffering (by any definition), I do see some genuine suffering (by common definition), and a whole lot of dissatisfaction with what is. To some extent, yes, it is being asked to re-organize our thoughts around a commonly held notion of what suffering is. But, one can also take into consideration what is being affected by the observation of said suffering that then subsequently causes a reaction. It might then be seen, perhaps, that an assumption is being made as to how I would feel in that situation, etc. etc.. There are some interesting studies that take a look at mirror neurons and how they might actually be at least somewhat central in the rise of the human species in the grand earthly drama. Here's a TED video as an intro to mirror neurons. Here's a interview with the same Dr. Ramachandran from the video.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 5:12:51 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. Hey, it's been a few years ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 5:23:01 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. Certainly in the absence of those polarities, the nature of experience becomes as clear as it's ever going to get. I'd say that what you've called metta underlies experience, always, and that those polarities can, and often do reflect a persons gravitation toward metta, which is for most, an unconscious pull. But by the same token, in the process of becoming conscious of the effect of those polarities on our experience, it's very possible to encounter deep surprise as to how our conditioning can often push that experience in the opposite direction of well being. I'd also opine that the polarities are always going to re-assert for as long as we're alive, but it's possible to live such that they no longer obscure the clarity as to what's going on with them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 5:37:30 GMT -5
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! Well, I wouldn't say that pain and pleasure are closely intertwined in all or really, even most instances. This is just an illustration of how language itself twists into confusion when the dialog starts exploring topics at the limits where the meanings of the words become ambiguous. The story is an example of pain that didn't involve suffering -- unless we either disregard the distinction entirely or start splitting hares over definitions -- and it's a story completely independent of any reference to any sort of realization.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 5:45:03 GMT -5
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.) Any process, involves increments, and I'm not denying either the process or the increments, but I am distinguishing between those increments and what the process reveals, in contrast to the revelation that marks the cessation of suffering. But what causes suffering in people doesn't relent with the realization. What ceases, is the effect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 6:11:36 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. Not everyone has to go through the same conditioned set of experiences. I'd agree that anyone with a resolved belief that they were not their body wasn't "enlightened". As far as Sunny goes, the apparent limits of my skin and my tendons are enough to keep my finger out of his cage, and this has nothing to do with my absence of belief that I am my body. But speaking seriously, the question of the relationship between your consciousness and what you take to be your body can be a wonderful opportunity. And I don't mean in any philosophical sense, but instead, in the sense that I've read about how Zen practioner's approach koans. Where does your body begin, and where does it end? To foreclose the question by insisting your body is the source of your consciousness or to otherwise closely-couple the ides of body and consciousness is to let that opportunity slide. I'll concede that a human body is a necessary prerequisite to an experience of human consciousness, and I'm not interested in suggesting some other sort of consciousness that transcends that experience. But the answer to this question isn't theoretical, or conceptual, nor is it just an open-ended uncertainty. It's not necessary to pursue this line of questioning to get to the other side of what a dark night brings, but passing up on it is passing up on one of the ways to the light.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 6:19:55 GMT -5
.. 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. Under 20 and football bears would call that the " redzone".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 6:27:36 GMT -5
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. As my contribution to The Great Baby Debate was limited to one post, I'm curious as to how you get from there to here??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2018 7:18:41 GMT -5
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. No, I don't write the walls while I'm blindfolded, ok?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 16, 2018 9:42:24 GMT -5
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. The difference between a consciousness of lack/conditionality and abundance/unconditionality.....is basically the same difference as what others refer to as unconsciousness and consciousness, or asleep and awake. I used the words I did because I think they more accurately describe what's going on at the level of understanding. For example, babies are born and raised with the belief that what is most important is what is outside of them, and that what is outside of them is unstable and temporary (they're correct about the last bit). The result of that belief is the seeking, striving, controlling, manipulating of the world around them, and only ever temporarily experiencing the stability, love and connection that they desire. This is what I mean by a consciousness of lack/conditionality. As our understandings change, and realizations happen (we are what we seek etc), our consciousness shifts to abundance/conditionality. We discover that what is most important to us is not unstable, but is also not 'outside' of us. I basically liked you last paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 16, 2018 9:46:14 GMT -5
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! Well, I wouldn't say that pain and pleasure are closely intertwined in all or really, even most instances. This is just an illustration of how language itself twists into confusion when the dialog starts exploring topics at the limits where the meanings of the words become ambiguous. The story is an example of pain that didn't involve suffering -- unless we either disregard the distinction entirely or start splitting hares over definitions -- and it's a story completely independent of any reference to any sort of realization. Some studies these days are showing that dopamine is often stimulated when having to deal with physical or emotional pain, though it may depend in part on the meaning given to the pain. I think that's also why one can get addicted to emotional distress, there can be a level of pleasure within it.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 16, 2018 14:57:10 GMT -5
As far as Sunny goes, the apparent limits of my skin and my tendons are enough to keep my finger out of his cage, and this has nothing to do with my absence of belief that I am my body. I hear space walking astronauts are wary of sharp objects for a similar reason. An exoskeleton is evidence of an exoskeleton, inhabited temporarily perhaps, and not much more than that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2018 4:32:48 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't say that pain and pleasure are closely intertwined in all or really, even most instances. This is just an illustration of how language itself twists into confusion when the dialog starts exploring topics at the limits where the meanings of the words become ambiguous. The story is an example of pain that didn't involve suffering -- unless we either disregard the distinction entirely or start splitting hares over definitions -- and it's a story completely independent of any reference to any sort of realization. Some studies these days are showing that dopamine is often stimulated when having to deal with physical or emotional pain, though it may depend in part on the meaning given to the pain. I think that's also why one can get addicted to emotional distress, there can be a level of pleasure within it. Yes, that would be an example of where pain and pleasure are closely intertwined. It's a shocking idea, especially if we get honest and turn it back in on ourselves. A constant feeling of outraged self-righteousness would be a particular, and particularly common flavor of that.
|
|