|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 17, 2018 11:13:44 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.  Yep, my view is pretty much in line with E's, particularly about babies, but this convo is primarily about definitions, and definitions are extremely artificial and rather rigidly bounded. In the real world definitions become less important than direct experience. For adults, the pain definition holds most of the time, but if the pain is unrelenting and severe, there comes a point at which the word "suffering" seems more applicable to the situation than "pain" even if there are no thoughts, such as, "this shouldn't be happening," or "How can I escape what's happening?" There is simply a level of wordless thoughtless agony that seems to exceed the simple definition "pain." Because I've injured my back dozens of time doing construction work over the years, I have a fair degree of scar tissue and arthritis of the lower back. As long as I'm mobile, it's not a problem, but I was once confined to a hospital bed for several days, and back pain became excruciating. I wasn't interested in taking a painkiller because the doc told me that it would probably prolong my stay. At a certain point I would have described the experience using the word "suffering" simply due to the intensity and unrelenting duration of the pain. If someone at that time had said to me, "You're not really suffering; it's just pain," I would probably have responded with a highly-directional expletive. haha |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 17, 2018 12:49:15 GMT -5
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??  Okay, well that was the impression I was under generally, both from what you said on this thread, and other stuff I've read in the past (although I can't think of anything specific offhand). I'm happy to apologise if I misrepresented your position. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 17, 2018 12:52:16 GMT -5
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. Yep, my view is pretty much in line with E's, particularly about babies, but this convo is primarily about definitions, and definitions are extremely artificial and rather rigidly bounded. In the real world definitions become less important that direct experience. For adults, the pain definition holds most of the time, but if the pain is unrelenting and severe, there comes a point at which the word "suffering" seems more applicable to the situation than "pain" even if there are no thoughts, such as, "this shouldn't be happening," or "How can I escape what's happening?" There is simply a level of wordless thoughtless agony that seems to exceed the simple definition "pain." Because I've injured my back dozens of time doing construction work over the years, I have a fair degree of scar tissue and arthritis of the lower back. As long as I'm mobile, it's not a problem, but I was once confined to a hospital bed for several days, and back pain became excruciating. I wasn't interested in taking a painkiller because the doc told me that it would probably prolong my stay. At a certain point I would have described the experience using the word "suffering" simply due to the intensity and unrelenting duration of the pain. If someone at that time had said to me, "You're not really suffering; it's just pain," I would probably have responded with a highly-directional expletive. haha Thanks for sharing that ZD, it all sounds reasonable, and I agree that a lot of it comes down to definitions, or the way the term is being applied, which is fairly pointless to argue about. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2018 13:28:56 GMT -5
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. Yep, my view is pretty much in line with E's, particularly about babies, but this convo is primarily about definitions, and definitions are extremely artificial and rather rigidly bounded. In the real world definitions become less important that direct experience. For adults, the pain definition holds most of the time, but if the pain is unrelenting and severe, there comes a point at which the word "suffering" seems more applicable to the situation than "pain" even if there are no thoughts, such as, "this shouldn't be happening," or "How can I escape what's happening?" There is simply a level of wordless thoughtless agony that seems to exceed the simple definition "pain." Because I've injured my back dozens of time doing construction work over the years, I have a fair degree of scar tissue and arthritis of the lower back. As long as I'm mobile, it's not a problem, but I was once confined to a hospital bed for several days, and back pain became excruciating. I wasn't interested in taking a painkiller because the doc told me that it would probably prolong my stay. At a certain point I would have described the experience using the word "suffering" simply due to the intensity and unrelenting duration of the pain. If someone at that time had said to me, "You're not really suffering; it's just pain," I would probably have responded with a highly-directional expletive. haha I wasn't going to comment, but when I read this earlier, my thought was also...'that's reasonable'! It reads like common sense and maybe there are times when common sense actually has value. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2018 2:55:10 GMT -5
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?? Okay, well that was the impression I was under generally, both from what you said on this thread, and other stuff I've read in the past (although I can't think of anything specific offhand). I'm happy to apologise if I misrepresented your position. Oh, no need for that. I wasn't offended, just curious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 10:17:09 GMT -5
I caught my wife throwing rocks at a tree in the back yard. A wounded pigeon scampering for cover under bushes hinted at the cause. Its mate was being shredded by a hawk. It seemed a dark and angry bird.
I thought to tell my wife that it was its nature, that the hawk was probably hungry and saw the pigeon as food. I thought to tell her that maybe it needed food for its young, but I relented realizing how stupid that would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 18, 2018 10:47:09 GMT -5
I caught my wife throwing rocks at a tree in the back yard. A wounded pigeon scampering for cover under bushes hinted at the cause. Its mate was being shredded by a hawk. It seemed a dark and angry bird. I thought to tell my wife that it was its nature, that the hawk was probably hungry and saw the pigeon as food. I thought to tell her that maybe it needed food for its young, but I relented realizing how stupid that would be. Nisargadatta said "In reality there is no killing and no dying. The real does not die, the unreal never lived." And true as this may be, it is sometimes better to bite the tongue, understanding that not everyone understands what he understood. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 18, 2018 11:34:32 GMT -5
I caught my wife throwing rocks at a tree in the back yard. A wounded pigeon scampering for cover under bushes hinted at the cause. Its mate was being shredded by a hawk. It seemed a dark and angry bird. I thought to tell my wife that it was its nature, that the hawk was probably hungry and saw the pigeon as food. I thought to tell her that maybe it needed food for its young, but I relented realizing how stupid that would be. As humans, we understand that nature can be brutal, (we can also understand that nature is benevolent). So we can step back and say....'I shouldn't interfere, I know the hawk is hungry and trying to feed babies, and is just being a hawk', but even if we do step back (which may be the wise thing to do in some situation), it's likely to hurt a bit to witness the brutality of nature. Animal photographers have to step back obviously, but I suspect that the job (and the camera) acts as a kind of filter which blocks the emotional connection to the situation. In a Louis de Bernieres book I read many years ago (a fictional book), one of the characters was collecting snails to eat, and as he looked at the snails squirming around in his bucket, he contemplated that it seems a poor way for a universe to be ordered, such that the strong prey on the weak. I sort of know what he means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 13:13:31 GMT -5
I caught my wife throwing rocks at a tree in the back yard. A wounded pigeon scampering for cover under bushes hinted at the cause. Its mate was being shredded by a hawk. It seemed a dark and angry bird. I thought to tell my wife that it was its nature, that the hawk was probably hungry and saw the pigeon as food. I thought to tell her that maybe it needed food for its young, but I relented realizing how stupid that would be. Nisargadatta said "In reality there is no killing and no dying. The real does not die, the unreal never lived." And true as this may be, it is sometimes better to bite the tongue, understanding that not everyone understands what he understood. If I had shared that Nisargadatta tidbit with her, which I love, BTW, there would have been a rock imbedded in my forehead, along with a comment like "in reality there is no rock and there is no head." |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 18, 2018 13:34:36 GMT -5
Nisargadatta said "In reality there is no killing and no dying. The real does not die, the unreal never lived." And true as this may be, it is sometimes better to bite the tongue, understanding that not everyone understands what he understood. If I had shared that Nisargadatta tidbit with her, which I love, BTW, there would have been a rock imbedded in my forehead, along with a comment like "in reality there is no rock and there is no head." Seems you married a rugged one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 13:48:25 GMT -5
I caught my wife throwing rocks at a tree in the back yard. A wounded pigeon scampering for cover under bushes hinted at the cause. Its mate was being shredded by a hawk. It seemed a dark and angry bird. I thought to tell my wife that it was its nature, that the hawk was probably hungry and saw the pigeon as food. I thought to tell her that maybe it needed food for its young, but I relented realizing how stupid that would be. As humans, we understand that nature can be brutal, (we can also understand that nature is benevolent). So we can step back and say....'I shouldn't interfere, I know the hawk is hungry and trying to feed babies, and is just being a hawk', but even if we do step back (which may be the wise thing to do in some situation), it's likely to hurt a bit to witness the brutality of nature. Animal photographers have to step back obviously, but I suspect that the job (and the camera) acts as a kind of filter which blocks the emotional connection to the situation. In a Louis de Bernieres book I read many years ago (a fictional book), one of the characters was collecting snails to eat, and as he looked at the snails squirming around in his bucket, he contemplated that it seems a poor way for a universe to be ordered, such that the strong prey on the weak. I sort of know what he means. Brutal is an understatement. I had a friend who owned a mink farm. The stories he told me. Wait! Are humans part of nature? Is it all about context or perspective. From my friend's view the mink farm feeds his family. From the hawk's perspective, the pigeon is food. From the pigeon's perspective the hawk is a monster, also from my wife's. I guess you're right, we, humans, can see all the different perspectives. What does that say about suffering? From an SR perspective we never lived so there is no suffering--see Nisargadatta quote in previous post? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 18, 2018 14:50:36 GMT -5
As humans, we understand that nature can be brutal, (we can also understand that nature is benevolent). So we can step back and say....'I shouldn't interfere, I know the hawk is hungry and trying to feed babies, and is just being a hawk', but even if we do step back (which may be the wise thing to do in some situation), it's likely to hurt a bit to witness the brutality of nature. Animal photographers have to step back obviously, but I suspect that the job (and the camera) acts as a kind of filter which blocks the emotional connection to the situation. In a Louis de Bernieres book I read many years ago (a fictional book), one of the characters was collecting snails to eat, and as he looked at the snails squirming around in his bucket, he contemplated that it seems a poor way for a universe to be ordered, such that the strong prey on the weak. I sort of know what he means. Brutal is an understatement. I had a friend who owned a mink farm. The stories he told me. Wait! Are humans part of nature? Is it all about context or perspective. From my friend's view the mink farm feeds his family. From the hawk's perspective, the pigeon is food. From the pigeon's perspective the hawk is a monster, also from my wife's. I guess you're right, we, humans, can see all the different perspectives. What does that say about suffering? From an SR perspective we never lived so there is no suffering--see Nisargadatta quote in previous post? I sat with that a minute contemplating. Yeah I can definitely find the truth or validity of that 'perspective' within me. On the other hand, my experience is that trying to find that perspective in a moment in which there is already a feeling/emotion is just a way of trying to find a quick way out of the feeling/emotion. I'm trying to 'cheat' what's going on in that moment. So in a sense, if it's already there, the only way is to feel it fully. If I'm sad, then feel that fully. If I'm feeling the brutality and pain of nature, then feel it. Equally if there is joy or love, then feel that. I sense that maybe even for the likes of Niz, that the SR 'perspective' is generally true for him, but perhaps is still a bit of an ideal. I mean, he wasn't best known for holding his temper lol. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2018 21:01:28 GMT -5
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 . Let's just talk about bunnies for a moment. Bunnies are not biologically self aware. I.E. when you put a mirror in front of them, they do not recognize their own reflection. So suffering doesn't apply to them? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2018 21:07:04 GMT -5
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? The body will signal the brain to relate to in reflection of pertaining to that it is thirsty. No mind/body identification necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2018 21:08:41 GMT -5
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 ) The response was "Nope". |
|
