|
Post by andrew on Feb 19, 2018 9:11:26 GMT -5
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. It's not significant to cognitive thought and feeling, but it's critical to suffering. Well that depends if you believe that a bunny can be physically tortured and still not suffer. To me it's not common sense to say that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 19, 2018 9:16:17 GMT -5
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 Memory2 minute retention for dogs sounds about right, based on my own 'study'. I do home maintenance, and meet a lot of dogs. They typically bark at first, then lick me like an old friend. When I go out to the van to get a tool or a part, the experiment begins. If I'm back in a minute or so, I'm greeted like the old friend I am, but if it's more like a few minutes, I get barked at and have to get reacquainted all over again. I meet a lot of dogs too, and if I spend a couple of weeks with them, and then return to them after a few months, and some demonstrate that they definitely remember us. But as the article said, what humans have is good 'episodic' memory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 9:49:10 GMT -5
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? Niz wouldn't say there is no suffering, only that the sufferer is an illusion. "As long as you identify yourself with your body and mind, you are bound to suffer; realize your independence and remain happy" Nisargadatta Didn't mean to imply that SR folks don't believe other folks don't suffer. Only that once you believe (know) you are not the mind or body, suffering ends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 10:09:23 GMT -5
Here's a link to a chap I listen to on youtube on occasion: he argues that either approach to suffering is valid: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rU1esD17C8 Don't know if the link works. Have never done it before. Let me know if you can get to the vid. What he didn't mention is that, without the resisting thoughts the fear dissolves, because the fear is made of resistance. Fear IS resistance. Not that I'm a huge fan of Rupert Spira, but I think he might agree with you. He often talks about "concessions" to the mind/body or interim steps. Perhaps this is one of them. So you're suggesting it is possible to remove "resisting" thoughts, by .......? The technique he's espousing is basically focusing attention purely on the feeling where for me thoughts tend to go to the background or dissipate. Please explain what you're suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Feb 19, 2018 11:50:06 GMT -5
Pain and suffering intertwine, one creating, reinforcing and worsening the other. If human beings were machines it would be possible to dissect this process and come up with a blueprint for how it happens and rescue them from it. That there are people suffering is proof enough that this isn't the case. It's true that at the root of all psychological suffering is a bogus belief, but putting a not in front of that particular belief is futile, as the end of it is acausal. The secondary pain from the suffering in this regard is ultimately not within control of the human being who is suffering, and that pain, is, sadly, all too real. For example, tension in the back and neck muscles from a dark psychological state of someone under pressure and working at a keyboard can directly precede serious back issues like a slipped disc. Regardless of what is taken to be cause, and what is taken to be effect in that scenario, the body and mind aren't really two separate things, and if we accept that there are limits to the intellects grasp of this nonseperation, then we can acknowledge the reality of that pain, without resorting to validating the bogus belief underlying the suffering. Awakening can be the beginning of a process of becoming conscious that makes the end of the bogus belief likely, as, although that end is acuasal, it does seem to correlate with certain life experience and realization described by those who are free of it. And while here I do reveal more than one belief of my own, for the most part, these are ideas that are being used to refer to a particular absence of belief, rather than either a belief, or a disbelief. Welp, I feel like there is a blueprint to human suffering, but that its creation is unconscious and so once the problem is within the conscious field the mind identified to have the problem is the problem itself. And so we inevitably see some interesting ideas, beliefs, and counter beliefs structured and compromised before spiritual progress takes place. An interesting thing that I haven't seen mentioned is how unconscious internalized pain can attract external disaster, experiences that seem to be the cause of pain but are completely correlated to already existing pain that is being managed unconsciously. And so, the line between the emotional hurt of losing a loved one and the suffering one experiences surrounding the inability to process the loss appears to cross realms. In this way, I would attribute suffering in the spiritual sense to a mind identified state of being out of touch with intelligence. I would also say this suffering arises from unconscious life writing, and directly stems from how human beings refuse to process emotions and choose to seek compensation. And it's at that point where it becomes difficult to talk about. A baby demonstrates discomfort to communicate distress. I'm hungry. I want my Mommy. I pooped in my pants. Healthy mind function. Simultaneously, to whatever extent primary caregivers are inflicted by mind identification, or harboring unresolved injuries, a door to a dark spiritual dimension is opened. This is when the suffering complex formulates. The world isn't safe. Nobody can be trusted. These types of beliefs in the unconscious merit seeking and escape through compensation. To the extent the child screams out for the cell phone, to what extent does the parent believe he owns the child? The phone is mine. Scream.
No it's not. But you are mine. Stop whining and play with your stupid plastic car I bought you that would only interest a chimp for half a day at best.
I want the phone. It's so cool. I love swiping. I'm already addicted. Scream.
I made you. Repress your emotions so the spirits cloaking me can bring you into hell.
Ok let's burn. Wahh!
Suffering and misalignment through compartmentalization go hand in hand. The core issue seems to be conditioning operating in a way to avoid the human implications of conditions. This can only take place unconsciously, through a block in emotion or feeling, coupled to a projection loop that manifests through seeking a compensation to the identity associated with the blocked emotion or feeling. Simultaneous. A cell phone can be enjoyed by a toddler. It can also be vested with a sense of self, and it is that investment that is suffering. A need to maintain an identity in always changing conditions isn't possible. Fear of change isn't just a fear of death, it's the fear of life, and the primary mechanism through which heart centered desires are bypassed for or laced with unconscious self seeking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 12:45:11 GMT -5
Pain and suffering intertwine, one creating, reinforcing and worsening the other. If human beings were machines it would be possible to dissect this process and come up with a blueprint for how it happens and rescue them from it. That there are people suffering is proof enough that this isn't the case. It's true that at the root of all psychological suffering is a bogus belief, but putting a not in front of that particular belief is futile, as the end of it is acausal. The secondary pain from the suffering in this regard is ultimately not within control of the human being who is suffering, and that pain, is, sadly, all too real. For example, tension in the back and neck muscles from a dark psychological state of someone under pressure and working at a keyboard can directly precede serious back issues like a slipped disc. Regardless of what is taken to be cause, and what is taken to be effect in that scenario, the body and mind aren't really two separate things, and if we accept that there are limits to the intellects grasp of this nonseperation, then we can acknowledge the reality of that pain, without resorting to validating the bogus belief underlying the suffering. Awakening can be the beginning of a process of becoming conscious that makes the end of the bogus belief likely, as, although that end is acuasal, it does seem to correlate with certain life experience and realization described by those who are free of it. And while here I do reveal more than one belief of my own, for the most part, these are ideas that are being used to refer to a particular absence of belief, rather than either a belief, or a disbelief. Welp, I feel like there is a blueprint to human suffering, but that its creation is unconscious and so once the problem is within the conscious field the mind identified to have the problem is the problem itself. And so we inevitably see some interesting ideas, beliefs, and counter beliefs structured and compromised before spiritual progress takes place. An interesting thing that I haven't seen mentioned is how unconscious internalized pain can attract external disaster, experiences that seem to be the cause of pain but are completely correlated to already existing pain that is being managed unconsciously. And so, the line between the emotional hurt of losing a loved one and the suffering one experiences surrounding the inability to process the loss appears to cross realms. In this way, I would attribute suffering in the spiritual sense to a mind identified state of being out of touch with intelligence. I would also say this suffering arises from unconscious life writing, and directly stems from how human beings refuse to process emotions and choose to seek compensation. And it's at that point where it becomes difficult to talk about. A baby demonstrates discomfort to communicate distress. I'm hungry. I want my Mommy. I pooped in my pants. Healthy mind function. Simultaneously, to whatever extent primary caregivers are inflicted by mind identification, or harboring unresolved injuries, a door to a dark spiritual dimension is opened. This is when the suffering complex formulates. The world isn't safe. Nobody can be trusted. These types of beliefs in the unconscious merit seeking and escape through compensation. To the extent the child screams out for the cell phone, to what extent does the parent believe he owns the child? The phone is mine. Scream.
No it's not. But you are mine. Stop whining and play with your stupid plastic car I bought you that would only interest a chimp for half a day at best.
I want the phone. It's so cool. I love swiping. I'm already addicted. Scream.
I made you. Repress your emotions so the spirits cloaking me can bring you into hell.
Ok let's burn. Wahh!
Suffering and misalignment through compartmentalization go hand in hand. The core issue seems to be conditioning operating in a way to avoid the human implications of conditions. This can only take place unconsciously, through a block in emotion or feeling, coupled to a projection loop that manifests through seeking a compensation to the identity associated with the blocked emotion or feeling. Simultaneous. A cell phone can be enjoyed by a toddler. It can also be vested with a sense of self, and it is that investment that is suffering. A need to maintain an identity in always changing conditions isn't possible. Fear of change isn't just a fear of death, it's the fear of life, and the primary mechanism through which heart centered desires are bypassed for or laced with unconscious self seeking. I don't necessarily disagree with your notion that some "suffering" is needlessly caused by the inability to deal with past issues, past pain. But it is interesting to note that you make a distinction between "emotional hurt" and "suffering." The basis of this distinction is that those "suffering" haven't dealt with past "emotional hurt" effectively (with intelligence) whereas those who merely experience "emotional hurt" know to deal with this effectively, hence they don't suffer?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 19, 2018 13:57:51 GMT -5
Tolle is always a source of insight, and I like his interpretation of the prodigal son .. but wow .. .. telling Andrew Cohen that the purpose of the world is so that peeps can suffer enough to wake up ?? .. Suffering is an undeniable part of many folks path stories. But. It's really, always, quite optional. Hey L, Incidentally, this is the sort of statement from which I draw that your position is that babies can't suffer.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 19, 2018 15:12:00 GMT -5
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". If you haven't seen the documentary Grizzly Man, check it out. True story and narrated by director Werner Herzog (as usual, the perfect voice for the narration). Don't read about it first, just watch with an inquisitive mind. It does actually have some bearing on the convo at hand about suffering, peeps, animals, and, uummmm, some of the dangers about confusing their degrees of conscious behavior.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 19, 2018 15:28:55 GMT -5
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. So, in your POV, babies are born with a pre-existing conditioning of ignorance and suffering. But, to clarify, we can become stable and abide in Truth, yes?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 19, 2018 15:58:17 GMT -5
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 Memory2 minute retention for dogs sounds about right, based on my own 'study'. I do home maintenance, and meet a lot of dogs. They typically bark at first, then lick me like an old friend. When I go out to the van to get a tool or a part, the experiment begins. If I'm back in a minute or so, I'm greeted like the old friend I am, but if it's more like a few minutes, I get barked at and have to get reacquainted all over again. Well, to go a step further in the experiment, get their olfactory memory into play. I have found that kneeling down with the back of my hand slightly held out is more "invitational". I'm still intrigued by the fact that when VERY territorial dogs of villages used to get too aggressive, all I had to do was act like I was bending down to pick up a rock, and that would usually be enough to get them to keep their distance. Now THAT'S conditioning!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2018 4:48:35 GMT -5
Tolle is always a source of insight, and I like his interpretation of the prodigal son .. but wow .. .. telling Andrew Cohen that the purpose of the world is so that peeps can suffer enough to wake up ?? .. Suffering is an undeniable part of many folks path stories. But. It's really, always, quite optional. Hey L, Incidentally, this is the sort of statement from which I draw that your position is that babies can't suffer. Ok, I think see how you get from point A to point B. It seems to me you're extrapolating "suffering is always optional" -- which is a misparaphrasing to begin with. Do I have that right? My intended meaning was far more narrow, far more contextually limited than that. My point is that for some folks suffering doesn't play much of a role at all in the spiritual path. The loss of existential meaning doesn't have to coincide with a suicidal crisis the way it did for Tolle. My position is similar to Tolle's in that a person can reach a point where they suddenly realize they don't have to suffer anymore. It is different in that I disagree with his implication that the story of deep suffering leading up to that point is necessarily universal. None of this has anything to do with babies.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2018 7:40:35 GMT -5
Under 20 and football bears would call that the " redzone". If you haven't seen the documentary Grizzly Man, check it out. True story and narrated by director Werner Herzog (as usual, the perfect voice for the narration). Don't read about it first, just watch with an inquisitive mind. It does actually have some bearing on the convo at hand about suffering, peeps, animals, and, uummmm, some of the dangers about confusing their degrees of conscious behavior. The punchline to that joke has sprung up in my mind every time I've seen a ripped apart piece of tree in the woods since then.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2018 7:50:25 GMT -5
Pain and suffering intertwine, one creating, reinforcing and worsening the other. If human beings were machines it would be possible to dissect this process and come up with a blueprint for how it happens and rescue them from it. That there are people suffering is proof enough that this isn't the case. It's true that at the root of all psychological suffering is a bogus belief, but putting a not in front of that particular belief is futile, as the end of it is acausal. The secondary pain from the suffering in this regard is ultimately not within control of the human being who is suffering, and that pain, is, sadly, all too real. For example, tension in the back and neck muscles from a dark psychological state of someone under pressure and working at a keyboard can directly precede serious back issues like a slipped disc. Regardless of what is taken to be cause, and what is taken to be effect in that scenario, the body and mind aren't really two separate things, and if we accept that there are limits to the intellects grasp of this nonseperation, then we can acknowledge the reality of that pain, without resorting to validating the bogus belief underlying the suffering. Awakening can be the beginning of a process of becoming conscious that makes the end of the bogus belief likely, as, although that end is acuasal, it does seem to correlate with certain life experience and realization described by those who are free of it. And while here I do reveal more than one belief of my own, for the most part, these are ideas that are being used to refer to a particular absence of belief, rather than either a belief, or a disbelief. Welp, I feel like there is a blueprint to human suffering, but that its creation is unconscious and so once the problem is within the conscious field the mind identified to have the problem is the problem itself. And so we inevitably see some interesting ideas, beliefs, and counter beliefs structured and compromised before spiritual progress takes place. An interesting thing that I haven't seen mentioned is how unconscious internalized pain can attract external disaster, experiences that seem to be the cause of pain but are completely correlated to already existing pain that is being managed unconsciously. And so, the line between the emotional hurt of losing a loved one and the suffering one experiences surrounding the inability to process the loss appears to cross realms. In this way, I would attribute suffering in the spiritual sense to a mind identified state of being out of touch with intelligence. I would also say this suffering arises from unconscious life writing, and directly stems from how human beings refuse to process emotions and choose to seek compensation. And it's at that point where it becomes difficult to talk about. A baby demonstrates discomfort to communicate distress. I'm hungry. I want my Mommy. I pooped in my pants. Healthy mind function. Simultaneously, to whatever extent primary caregivers are inflicted by mind identification, or harboring unresolved injuries, a door to a dark spiritual dimension is opened. This is when the suffering complex formulates. The world isn't safe. Nobody can be trusted. These types of beliefs in the unconscious merit seeking and escape through compensation. To the extent the child screams out for the cell phone, to what extent does the parent believe he owns the child? The phone is mine. Scream.
No it's not. But you are mine. Stop whining and play with your stupid plastic car I bought you that would only interest a chimp for half a day at best.
I want the phone. It's so cool. I love swiping. I'm already addicted. Scream.
I made you. Repress your emotions so the spirits cloaking me can bring you into hell.
Ok let's burn. Wahh!
Suffering and misalignment through compartmentalization go hand in hand. The core issue seems to be conditioning operating in a way to avoid the human implications of conditions. This can only take place unconsciously, through a block in emotion or feeling, coupled to a projection loop that manifests through seeking a compensation to the identity associated with the blocked emotion or feeling. Simultaneous. A cell phone can be enjoyed by a toddler. It can also be vested with a sense of self, and it is that investment that is suffering. A need to maintain an identity in always changing conditions isn't possible. Fear of change isn't just a fear of death, it's the fear of life, and the primary mechanism through which heart centered desires are bypassed for or laced with unconscious self seeking. Fascinating take 'j. I was only interested in bridging Reefs' idea of a bogus belief with making a case for compassion for the sufferer. There's some interesting insight into the mechanics of suffering there .. but I know myself well enough to know that I'm like one of the least qualified peeps on the planet to help others mitigate their suffering.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 20, 2018 12:47:01 GMT -5
If you haven't seen the documentary Grizzly Man, check it out. True story and narrated by director Werner Herzog (as usual, the perfect voice for the narration). Don't read about it first, just watch with an inquisitive mind. It does actually have some bearing on the convo at hand about suffering, peeps, animals, and, uummmm, some of the dangers about confusing their degrees of conscious behavior. The punchline to that joke has sprung up in my mind every time I've seen a ripped apart piece of tree in the woods since then. Where o where could that sense of certainty go in those kinds of given contexts?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2018 2:57:49 GMT -5
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? First thing on the net that I copied and pasted about bunnies behaviour . Grunts are often angry reactions to a human behavior or towards another rabbit and may be followed by scratching or biting. ... Some rabbits show their disapproval by grunting to protect what is theirs (cage, food, etc.) from a human hand or another rabbit and often, that is the extent of their anger.Now call me Mr Picky butt certain behaviours mirrors one'e sense of self in reflection of others . Suffering is this sense of self compared to not . When you are of this world you are suffering, simply by being of this world . Have you the comparison in toe? Behavior isn't a good indicator. Here's a list of aminals that have passed the mirror test. Bunnies didn't make the cut.
|
|