|
Post by lolly on Feb 23, 2018 6:18:10 GMT -5
That sophistication makes all the difference. It's an excellent exploration as it has the potential to clarify the point of suffering, which isn't as universal as you think it is. Torture a dog and the dog will suffer, but it won't resist its own resistance, it won't tell sophisticated stories. It's suffering is pure, in the moment, and innocent. And it will come to fear the torturer. I would invite you to notice that you are over-ruling your intuition and instinct. If you're not resisting the resistance, what is resisting?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 6:48:55 GMT -5
Torture a dog and the dog will suffer, but it won't resist its own resistance, it won't tell sophisticated stories. It's suffering is pure, in the moment, and innocent. And it will come to fear the torturer. I would invite you to notice that you are over-ruling your intuition and instinct. If you're not resisting the resistance, what is resisting? A sense of discord, a sense of 'No', or a felt sense of 'I don't want this'. Animals won't argue with this, the mind isn't sophisticated enough. They just don't like something and that's enough. For us it is a bit different, for better or worse.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 6:59:39 GMT -5
yes, the bunny's self awareness just isn't quite as sophisticated, but it is still relating. I guess it's a question of, does it matter if we torture the bunnies, and if so, why? I say yes, because of the inter-relationship and absence of 'actual' separation. I'm not saying 'existence' judges us for it, but there are natural laws of experience....many of which, as humans, we have yet to integrate deeply into our experience. We place value on things which don't matter quite as much as we believe and this messes with our ability to live in alignment with natural laws. For example, we turn animals (and even humans) into 'commodities' and as such, don't treat them, and us with respect. In turn we have to live with the consequence of that, which is painful, and which is partly why we medicate ourselves in the many different ways that we do.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 23, 2018 9:30:30 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying. (Regarding the babies, I'll move you into the equivocal column then for the time being ). Could I not infer that if suffering is optional, then by extension babies can't suffer, due to limited options? ... I'll assume that's an artefact of the misparaphrase. My counterpoint to Tolle is quite concrete and practical. The baby/animal suffering debate, isn't. Does a person seeking existential truth have to suffer? I say: they will suffer for as long as they're seeking, but they don't have to suffer in order to seek, and the suffering might not always lead to greater relative clarity in the seeking. Will blundering through life unconsciously result in intense suffering that will wake them up? I say, maybe, but awakening because of intense suffering isn't a foregone conclusion. Cohen had his followers make sacrifices that were bound to create and intensify their suffering, and that's not the only example I could give of people acting on the misconceived notion that suffering is somehow worthy or noble or that deliberately enduring hardship is a sort of spiritual practice ever worth anyone's effort and time. What does any of that have to do with babies? "Can babies or animals suffer?" isn't a practical question, and isn't directly pertinent to my interest here in how pain and suffering are related to awakening and self-realization. It's general, vague, open-ended and philosophical. I've written that suffering can't be defined in relative terms, and that the distinction between pain and suffering can be valid and informative, but that the distinction between pain and suffering loses it's efficacy at the extremes. I refrained from claiming the elephants in your scenario weren't suffering, and went into some detail to explain why. I've acknowledged the flip side to the coin on the distinction between pain and suffering -- how they interrelate and give rise to one another, and wrote about how the end of the false sense of identity underlying suffering is acausal, as in, not within the personal control of the person suffering. There's no way to reduce my position to "suffering is optional" without ignoring most of what I've written and taking it out of context. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate. If I'm being honest, I don't relate to much of it (apart from, "suffering can't be defined in relative terms"), but then I think perhaps my propensity is to consider the situation more broadly, and holistically than imo what you guys often seem to be tending to work with, i.e. I'm interested in the entire mass of stress and suffering, over all species, and the root causes and implications of that (samsara), rather than just this extreme psychological angst born of conceptual self [mis]identification, i.e. the narrow adult human stuff you guys generally focus on. And to that end I certainly believe the truth of dukkha can be known directly/realised, but that in order for that, we'd need to be considering a much bigger picture that extends over perpetual lifetimes, which basically comes down to how kamma 'grows' into the round of rebirth. To put it bluntly (and fairly clumsily), the way I see it, soon we'll all be dead, and then well'll be reborn, and SR won't count for as much as you think. Incidentally, Buddha classed birth itself as dukkha … and taught, the end of dukkha. Fwiw, the real crux of the matter is that true liberation is the apprehension of the cessation of the production of new kamma, which is liberation with life-force remaining (nibbana), which upon subsequent death naturally leads to liberation without life-force remaining (paranibanna), and tbh, no-one here's even particularly close, although I suspect that some may have sailed close to the threshold, and weren't ready. Something I can relate to personally. That I can all relate to, and agree with. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2018 9:46:29 GMT -5
Suffering is optional...unless it isn't. Perhaps if someone took the time and trouble to explain context then noone would ever quote back that 2nd sentence to me without taking into account some reference to the first. I agree that falling into self delusion brings suffering such that an appreciation for freedom comes about, a la the prodigal son, and the world ultimately brings about this outcome as a consequence of seeking to escape the suffering, but I would not say the purpose of the world is to suffer enough to wake up. The issue I have is not that that scenario doesn't play out, but rather with the idea of purpose. Nobody has set up the world with that purpose. Yes, of course. There are as many ways for that seeking to play out as there have been, are and will be people. From what I've learned of history and from what I read of the present it seems to me that most of those stories remain limited to a lifelong relative flight from pain and toward pleasure. Okay, suffering happens to many, but it's always optional. Not from the perspective of the one suffering. I guess what you mean is that even though it seems inevitable, it's really not. The clarity of the relationship between a people peeps' bogus existential belief and their suffering isn't available to them until they've self-realized and the illusion of misidentification is lifted. As they don't have the option to will this to happen, the suffering certainly isn't going to seem optional to them as it's happening. Since all it takes is one simple moment of self-honesty to penetrate the illusion, strictly speaking, the suffering is never necessary, but that's only a pointer to what can happen, and there's no roadmap to that metaphorical intersection. Where it gets interesting is in the half-light of an awakened mind that hasn't yet realized the truth. They're conscious of all sorts of notions and subject to a myriad of noticings on a moment-to-moment basis that the typical Joe Q. Peep is completely noseblind to. The notion of voluntarily opting-in to the suffering game is going to sound completely absurd to Joey and Joesephine, and the only second thoughts they're likely to give the idea are probably forcefully negative. But in that half-light, all sorts of interest in the topic gets generated. I mean, just look at all these threads and posts about the topic on the fourms.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2018 9:56:56 GMT -5
My counterpoint to Tolle is quite concrete and practical. The baby/animal suffering debate, isn't. Does a person seeking existential truth have to suffer? I say: they will suffer for as long as they're seeking, but they don't have to suffer in order to seek, and the suffering might not always lead to greater relative clarity in the seeking. Will blundering through life unconsciously result in intense suffering that will wake them up? I say, maybe, but awakening because of intense suffering isn't a foregone conclusion. Cohen had his followers make sacrifices that were bound to create and intensify their suffering, and that's not the only example I could give of people acting on the misconceived notion that suffering is somehow worthy or noble or that deliberately enduring hardship is a sort of spiritual practice ever worth anyone's effort and time. What does any of that have to do with babies? "Can babies or animals suffer?" isn't a practical question, and isn't directly pertinent to my interest here in how pain and suffering are related to awakening and self-realization. It's general, vague, open-ended and philosophical. I've written that suffering can't be defined in relative terms, and that the distinction between pain and suffering can be valid and informative, but that the distinction between pain and suffering loses it's efficacy at the extremes. I refrained from claiming the elephants in your scenario weren't suffering, and went into some detail to explain why. I've acknowledged the flip side to the coin on the distinction between pain and suffering -- how they interrelate and give rise to one another, and wrote about how the end of the false sense of identity underlying suffering is acausal, as in, not within the personal control of the person suffering. There's no way to reduce my position to "suffering is optional" without ignoring most of what I've written and taking it out of context. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate. If I'm being honest, I don't relate to much of it (apart from, "suffering can't be defined in relative terms"), but then I think perhaps my propensity is to consider the situation more broadly, and holistically than imo what you guys often seem to be tending to work with, i.e. I'm interested in the entire mass of stress and suffering, over all species, and the root causes and implications of that (samsara), rather than just this extreme psychological angst born of conceptual self [mis]identification, i.e. the narrow adult human stuff you guys generally focus on. And to that end I certainly believe the truth of dukkha can be known directly/realised, but that in order for that, we'd need to be considering a much bigger picture that extends over perpetual lifetimes, which basically comes down to how kamma 'grows' into the round of rebirth. To put it bluntly (and fairly clumsily), the way I see it, soon we'll all be dead, and then well'll be reborn, and SR won't count for as much as you think. Incidentally, Buddha classed birth itself as dukkha … and taught, the end of dukkha. Fwiw, the real crux of the matter is that true liberation is the apprehension of the cessation of the production of new kamma, which is liberation with life-force remaining (nibbana), which upon subsequent death naturally leads to liberation without life-force remaining (paranibanna), and tbh, no-one here's even particularly close, although I suspect that some may have sailed close to the threshold, and weren't ready. Something I can relate to personally. That I can all relate to, and agree with. Nice. Well, I've consistently addressed that broad range of suffering in what I've written, but the permanent end of suffering isn't relevant to babies or animals, and that's where the focus on the mechanism of a false sense of identity in a human adult arises from. Yes, we disagree about re-birth, but I've definitely also addressed this idea of the world as on fire -- isn't that something the Buddha said? .. you might recall me expressing how I understand this final meaning of dukka to refer, essentially, to entropy.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 23, 2018 11:26:37 GMT -5
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate. If I'm being honest, I don't relate to much of it (apart from, "suffering can't be defined in relative terms"), but then I think perhaps my propensity is to consider the situation more broadly, and holistically than imo what you guys often seem to be tending to work with, i.e. I'm interested in the entire mass of stress and suffering, over all species, and the root causes and implications of that (samsara), rather than just this extreme psychological angst born of conceptual self [mis]identification, i.e. the narrow adult human stuff you guys generally focus on. And to that end I certainly believe the truth of dukkha can be known directly/realised, but that in order for that, we'd need to be considering a much bigger picture that extends over perpetual lifetimes, which basically comes down to how kamma 'grows' into the round of rebirth. To put it bluntly (and fairly clumsily), the way I see it, soon we'll all be dead, and then well'll be reborn, and SR won't count for as much as you think. Incidentally, Buddha classed birth itself as dukkha … and taught, the end of dukkha. Fwiw, the real crux of the matter is that true liberation is the apprehension of the cessation of the production of new kamma, which is liberation with life-force remaining (nibbana), which upon subsequent death naturally leads to liberation without life-force remaining (paranibanna), and tbh, no-one here's even particularly close, although I suspect that some may have sailed close to the threshold, and weren't ready. Something I can relate to personally. That I can all relate to, and agree with. Nice. Well, I've consistently addressed that broad range of suffering in what I've written, but the permanent end of suffering isn't relevant to babies or animals, and that's where the focus on the mechanism of a false sense of identity in a human adult arises from. Yes, we disagree about re-birth, but I've definitely also addressed this idea of the world as on fire -- isn't that something the Buddha said? .. you might recall me expressing how I understand this final meaning of dukka to refer, essentially, to entropy. Yes, you're pretty much right about that, it's a fair point, other than to say the actions of animals even, ultimately results in moving either toward or away from liberation, (although the potential to complete the journey is absent in their particular form), and that it's possibly relevant insofar as I see the position that babies can't suffer as being a retroactive artefact of faux liberation. And yes the Buddha talked in those terms in the adittapariyaya sutta (the fire sermon), among others. On considersation, perhaps I was being a bit unfair, it's useful enough to work in different contexts, situationally.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2018 11:43:38 GMT -5
It might be useful to contemplate the difference between an animal that can function in the world without a mind/body identification, and an animal that is biologically self aware. (Or do you see a difference?) yes the difference is in the complexity and abstraction of the story. A human existentially suffers and most animals do not (probably). Humans can set goals and consciously give themselves purpose in a way that animals do not, and this can cause a lot of suffering if mishandled. And whereas animals can experience resistance, humans may also resist the resistance, which can be uncomfortable. There may be a few other examples I could offer. ...Yes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2018 11:49:47 GMT -5
That sophistication makes all the difference. It's an excellent exploration as it has the potential to clarify the point of suffering, which isn't as universal as you think it is. Torture a dog and the dog will suffer, but it won't resist its own resistance, it won't tell sophisticated stories. It's suffering is pure, in the moment, and innocent. And it will come to fear the torturer. I would invite you to notice that you are over-ruling your intuition and instinct. The notion of resisting resistance is misconceived. It's true that it won't tell sophisticated stories. It won't tell any personal stories at all because it doesn't identify as a dog person. You believe that pain = suffering. We'll have to agree to disagree about that or continue to resist our resistance.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2018 12:07:24 GMT -5
Torture a dog and the dog will suffer, but it won't resist its own resistance, it won't tell sophisticated stories. It's suffering is pure, in the moment, and innocent. And it will come to fear the torturer. I would invite you to notice that you are over-ruling your intuition and instinct. If you're not resisting the resistance, what is resisting? That's the entrance to the bunny hole.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 12:16:14 GMT -5
Torture a dog and the dog will suffer, but it won't resist its own resistance, it won't tell sophisticated stories. It's suffering is pure, in the moment, and innocent. And it will come to fear the torturer. I would invite you to notice that you are over-ruling your intuition and instinct. The notion of resisting resistance is misconceived. It's true that it won't tell sophisticated stories. It won't tell any personal stories at all because it doesn't identify as a dog person. You believe that pain = suffering. We'll have to agree to disagree about that or continue to resist our resistance. Resisting resistance just requires a level of sophistication. For example, some folks might naturally be a bit resistant to the prospect of their yearly prostate examination, but folks resist the resistance and force themselves to go. We have the capacity to abstractly measure what is good for us and do unpleasant things even though we don't want to. Animals are more instinctive and measure a lot less. On the flip side...for example, in spiritual teachings, we are sometimes told that we don't HAVE to suffer (I'm not saying that is a wrong thing to say). But what can happen is that we find ourselves in a state of resistance (which has a quality of suffering), and we attempt to bring an end to it, which adds extra layers of suffering to the situation. We make a problem OUT of the resistance, when sometimes...resistance/suffering is quite natural and normal given the situation. I don't believe that pain EQUALS suffering. They have a different meaning. I believe that pain is more a sensation that carries a felt quality of suffering. From the other thread, it sounds like even robots can respond to sensation. But we don't just respond to sensation, we FEEL the sensation, and depending on what the sensation is, the feeling will be desirable or undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 12:19:04 GMT -5
If you're not resisting the resistance, what is resisting? That's the entrance to the bunny hole. I think I misunderstood lolly's question, I thought he was asking me 'what is the nature of the resisting'. Whereas he means 'what' is resisting. In that case, the apparent ego is resisting, but the apparent ego is also functioning as part of the whole body functioning. Drink an overly hot cup of coffee, and the apparent ego will immediately resist.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 23, 2018 13:25:45 GMT -5
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! Yes, I almost said that to Andrew in response to dogs remembering peeps after months. When I go back to a house days or weeks later, I let them smell my hand and they usually calm right down. You're obviously top dog in the villages. Yeah, Andy/Tenka do seem to more-or-less equate all sentience or senses with some sense of self. I understand we don't wanna judge unless we've walked a mile in another's shoes/paws/roots, but it seems we're well beyond saying other creatures are any "lesser". It seems we can empathize and do well enough in the world without the need to swallow the whole projection of "how I'd feel". If nothing else, there could be an acknowledgment that the deeper the capacity of self-awareness, the greater the capacity for suffering to play out in existence, if nothing else, simply due to the existential suffering (i.e., as differentiated from and/or added to emotional and/or physical suffering). Who knows, maybe it's just an overactive limbic system.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 23, 2018 13:50:11 GMT -5
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? Darn, I just lost my reply I wrote. Okay, I think babies are being conditioned by 'ignorance' of the world from day one, probably in the womb even. It may even be in the genes as the likes of David Lipton is exploring. And yes, but I don't think being stable in Truth means being free from conditioning that can trigger us emotionally, although being stable will probably mean changing the way we respond to those triggers/emotions. Is this what you've been arguing against all these years? There's a very clear distinction between what is conditioned and what is aware of the conditioning that has been addressed, like a lot. As I see it, everyone is different and has a slightly different spiritual interest/focus. I know other spiritual folks which have other kinds of path too. I hop around like a rabbit, just going with what resonates. I see merit in all paths, but as has been seen on the forum, I will definitely challenge when I want to. Yes, "challenge", among several other (emotionally triggered) reactions.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 23, 2018 13:55:11 GMT -5
That's the entrance to the bunny hole. I think I misunderstood lolly's question, I thought he was asking me 'what is the nature of the resisting'. Whereas he means 'what' is resisting. In that case, the apparent ego is resisting, but the apparent ego is also functioning as part of the whole body functioning. Drink an overly hot cup of coffee, and the apparent ego will immediately resist. So, the apparent lip, with all its little nerve endings sending out pain signals, and the apparent ego are peerrtty much the same "thing"? Mind you, I can at least find my lip.
|
|