|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 14:16:34 GMT -5
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. I've argued pretty much every spiritual subject under the sun in the last few years so I've probably said it before, but it's not something I would consider to be a theme of my arguing... I see the value in the distinction.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 14:20:39 GMT -5
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. Yeah, they're very closely related, and yeah, the lip is much easier to find that the apparent feeler. It can easily be seen that there is no feeler (which is why I am using the word 'apparent'), but 'self'-awareness is a persistent illusion in the sense that when the lip or tongue is scalded, we know about it!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 23, 2018 14:36:35 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. Yes, brilliant, exactly, bingo. (But the non-dualists here think that's just a bunch of nonsense-hooey).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 23, 2018 14:39:53 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. It doesn't matter what opinion is, only the facts matter.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 23, 2018 14:51:51 GMT -5
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. I think this question of do animals suffer can be made less complicated. The simple question is, do animals have memory? Yes, they do (they don't make abstractions, but they remember via representations. See Temple Grandin's work with livestock, where 1/2 of the slaughter houses in the USA now use her methods of treating animals going to slaughter, making the ~experience~ up to death more humane [bad choice of words, as the benefit is for them, not-mostly-us]. If you think animals don't suffer (psychologically), read up on Temple Grandin and the language of animals). Memory is the source of psychological suffering.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 23, 2018 15:02:03 GMT -5
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. theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/19/temple-grandin-killing-them-softly-at-slaughterhouses-for-30-years/If animals don't suffer than slaughter houses are spending millions of dollars to assuage human conscience. If you don't want to read the whole article scroll down to about the middle where it discusses one invention of Temple Grandin, curved chutes, so livestock can't see what's coming for them, and become upset. www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds?language=enTemple Grandin TED talk about visual thinking, fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2018 16:00:16 GMT -5
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. It doesn't matter what opinion is, only the facts matter. Well, what "facts" did you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2018 19:11:25 GMT -5
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. Suffering is resistance (though resistance may not be suffering). Resisting suffering is the same resistance that's causing the suffering. Resisting resistance is the same resistance. Resisting the resistance of the resistance is the same resistance. Resisting something but doing it anyway is called courage.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2018 19:25:35 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. I suspect he's pointing out the same misconception I am. To no longer resist the resisting is simply to let go of the only resisting happening.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 23, 2018 19:42:50 GMT -5
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. Yes, "challenge", among several other (emotionally triggered) reactions. I've argued pretty much every spiritual subject under the sun in the last few years so I've probably said it before, but it's not something I would consider to be a theme of my arguing... I see the value in the distinction. Is it too much to say that what you are arguing for is actually a preference for how one (you) would like the world ordered to make it a "better" place based on how you see it?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 23, 2018 19:45:19 GMT -5
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. Yeah, they're very closely related, and yeah, the lip is much easier to find that the apparent feeler. It can easily be seen that there is no feeler (which is why I am using the word 'apparent'), but 'self'-awareness is a persistent illusion in the sense that when the lip or tongue is scalded, we know about it! ...that suffers, but it IS an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 19:57:55 GMT -5
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. Suffering is resistance (though resistance may not be suffering). Resisting suffering is the same resistance that's causing the suffering. Resisting resistance is the same resistance. Resisting the resistance of the resistance is the same resistance. Resisting something but doing it anyway is called courage. This is what Tolle says, which I quite like... “Accepting our experience as it is” means just that; accepting our experience in the moment. If we are feeling frustrated, angry, or indignant, accept that feeling. Don’t resist it, or wish it weren’t there; but let it in, become interested in how it feels. Then rather than focusing on whatever I may have been resisting, I turn my attention to the resistance itself, opening to this aspect of “what is.” Even more valuably, we can explore the resistance itself. It can be quite subtle, and not easily noticed at first. I find it useful to simply pause and ask: “Is there any sense of resistance that I am not noticing?” And gently wait. I may then become aware of some resentment or aversion towards my experience, or sometimes a faint sense of tension or contraction in my being. Then rather than focusing on whatever I may have been resisting, I turn my attention to the resistance itself, opening to this aspect of “what is.” Rather than dividing experience into two parts—the experience in the moment, and thoughts and feelings about that experience—any resistance is now included as part of the present moment. Not resisting the resistance, the veil of discontent dissolves, and I return to a more relaxed, easeful state of mind.'' Now, the thing is that animals can't resist the resistance, but humans can. Sometimes it may even be useful to do so, depending on the situation. But at other times, no.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 20:00:11 GMT -5
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. I suspect he's pointing out the same misconception I am. To no longer resist the resisting is simply to let go of the only resisting happening. Oh no, not necessarily. Sometimes you can drop resistance to resisting, and there is still a resistance present, and sometimes that's fine. Sometimes a level of tension is an appropriate physical response to a situation. Sometimes it is okay to suffer a bit, it's just an aspect of the human condition really. Suffering isn't always absolute hell.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 20:05:58 GMT -5
I've argued pretty much every spiritual subject under the sun in the last few years so I've probably said it before, but it's not something I would consider to be a theme of my arguing... I see the value in the distinction. Is it too much to say that what you are arguing for is actually a preference for how one (you) would like the world ordered to make it a "better" place based on how you see it? I'm not really understanding your question, but what I am arguing here is that it's okay to re-define suffering for the purposes of looking at a particular human form of suffering, but let's not get so lost in spiritual thinking that somehow dogs can be tortured and not suffer. It seems to me that to go down that route would be to actually lose the essence of spirituality and is therefore counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2018 20:07:44 GMT -5
Yeah, they're very closely related, and yeah, the lip is much easier to find that the apparent feeler. It can easily be seen that there is no feeler (which is why I am using the word 'apparent'), but 'self'-awareness is a persistent illusion in the sense that when the lip or tongue is scalded, we know about it! ...that suffers, but it IS an illusion. Sure.
|
|