|
Post by andrew on Feb 24, 2018 11:53:54 GMT -5
Yes. I would say there is still the original resisting, but sometimes there's nothing that can be done about that original resisting. Sometimes life in a moment is just 'resisting'. The less we argue with those moments, the less intense the suffering is. The arguing WITH the resisting intensifies it. Though having said that, there are times when it can be useful to argue with it, to 'over-ride' it (going for the prostate exam for example!). I don't see what you call a 'split mind' as always a bad thing, sometimes it is just a natural effect of consciously deciding to do something that you don't wholly desire to do. It's just a childish wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind if you want to have the prostate exam done or not. If not, don't go. If so, go. Simples. Where is there a proper place for resistance? Ah...'make up your mind'. That's like saying, 'commit to the decision'. Unfortunately it's not always as simple as that. One can 'make up their mind' to do something, and there still be a lack of congruence in regard to the decision. I rarely 'make up my mind' or 'commit to decisions'. It's barely even true to say that I make a decision, it's more true to say that 'decisions happen'. But if I make a decision and then there is incongruence, it will be noticed and experienced and I might continue with the decision.....of if the incongruence becomes too intense, then it will be noticed, experienced and a different decision is made. It sounds like you can use the energy of 'commitment' to over-ride incongruence, which is fine, and what most people do. Most folks are able to apply 'rationality'. I don't have that capacity (though I did once). I would be a TERRIBLE employee (in fact, I could never be one again).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 24, 2018 11:59:15 GMT -5
well, no, I'm just addressing the question. If the question is 'what is existential suffering', then let's address it. Existential suffering, or more generally, mental suffering, is the idea 'this shouldn't be happening to me'. It's critical to note that this requires an imagined me. I'm saying animals that don't have self awareness don't have a me around which to form that statement. Well I agree that that is a key aspect of human suffering, but I would say that animals do have that story in a VERY basic, pre-conceptual and rudimentary form. Nevertheless, as humans we do have the ability to challenge and question that story, and I would agree with you that it is a good one to challenge, and I agree that investigating the nature of the apparent 'self' that suffers is good.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 24, 2018 12:04:26 GMT -5
Because only someone that is deeply within a spiritual 'thought' context would get so lost into that context that they start believing that dogs can't suffer. And I don't actually believe that you don't believe that dogs can suffer given that you spend time with animals. Spirituality isn't Life itself. Most often, spiritual ideas are very useful and powerful challenges to our conditioning, but often set up quite inhuman ideals. I haven't yet met a single spiritual person that doesn't judge, resist, attach, project, get angry at times...and suffer, at least to a tiny degree....and that's because of the nature of the human life. I do believe fully in the transformational affect of spiritual ideas. Spirituality brings a whole new dimension to human experience, but unfortunately doesn't stop us from being human. I didn't ask you to restate your conclusion. I asked to explain how you came to it. How is it spiritual thinking? I thought I did answer it. Okay. It is spiritual thinking because intuitively and instinctively, we know when an animal or baby is suffering. Spirituality invites us to reframe and redefine our definition of suffering, so as to investigate the internal processes that cause suffering (whereas our conditioning tends to say that outside processes cause suffering). We have to use our mind in a rational manner to reframe and redefine the definition of suffering, and there is value to this. Ultimately though, they are both true. Internal and external processes cause suffering (and you don't have to tell me at this point that Consciousness is the cause). Someone overly focused on the external cause, might benefit from looking at internal processes. Someone overly focused on the internal causes, might do well to look at their life and take some action (like leave an abusive partner).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2018 12:26:57 GMT -5
Well, what "facts" did you have in mind? I don't have any facts in mind, only that what is, is. In that instance then, your assertion is just another opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2018 12:34:05 GMT -5
I don't have any facts in mind, only that what is, is. In that instance then, your assertion is just another opinion. Of course, anything written is merely an opinion. (The Tao that can be put into words, is not the Tao. chapter one, first line). To know the truth you have to become the truth. (And you have to cease to be what isn't true. In the Tao, every day, something is lost).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 12:43:18 GMT -5
I watched a video of a Buddhist monk on fire, self immolation. I guess he wasn't suffering. He sat perfectly still. Though he stated he did it to end the suffering of Buddhists in Vietnam during the Diem regime. He did it to end his suffering. Was he SR?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2018 13:35:21 GMT -5
In that instance then, your assertion is just another opinion. Of course, anything written is merely an opinion. (The Tao that can be put into words, is not the Tao. chapter one, first line). To know the truth you have to become the truth. (And you have to cease to be what isn't true. In the Tao, every day, something is lost). replied here.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 24, 2018 14:34:25 GMT -5
You believe that pain = suffering. We'll have to agree to disagree about that or continue to resist our resistance. Just to mention that about a week ago I decided to pose this particular issue over on one of the Buddhist forums (under the username Rory), ideally to see if any of the monks or nuns might be to be able to either give me any pointers, or raise any aspects I hadn't considered. Somewhat predictably most of the big hitters gave it a swerve, and probably for good reason, although a couple of dudes popped up and imo got to the crux of the matter quite swiftly. Obviously there's a lot of Buddhist jargon in the conversation, and at this stage I'm not sure whether the conversation is really going anywhere, but I thought I'd post a link here, just in case any onlookers who may have a passing interest hearing some Buddhist perspective on the matter wanted to have a gander. (Let me know if that contravenes any rules). What is interesting is that, whilst none of them would ever take the position that babies, and animals can't suffer, there's certainly no consensus about the nature of suffering itself, or whether pain is suffering (if anything the general consensus it's that it isn't), or even what the conditions for the cessation of suffering really are. At least among most of those who have contributed so far. Anyway, here's the link, in case anyone's interested.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2018 16:04:04 GMT -5
I watched a video of a Buddhist monk on fire, self immolation. I guess he wasn't suffering. He sat perfectly still. Though he stated he did it to end the suffering of Buddhists in Vietnam during the Diem regime. He did it to end his suffering. Was he SR? I remember doing a report on the Vietnam War in 7th grade (1964). I wrongly assumed it would be over when I reached draft age. By that time I was still naive and ignorant. My only real interest then was in not being drafted (successful in that). However I recently watched about the first half of the Ken Burns documentary (I think it was a 10 or 11 part series). I cannot believe I chose to be so ignorant as a teenager and early 20's-person. I can agree with many of the soldiers interviewed during the war (their views obviously not making it to national news and "prime time TV"). "We (USA) were fighting on the wrong side". The South Vietnam government was corrupt. The POTUS and Cabinet dudes knew so. We knew there was going to be a coup, and did not try to stop it nor warn SVN President, who was killed in the coup (his sister-Iin-law, Madame Nhu, the Dragon Lady, defacto-First Lady [pres was not married], survived because she happened to be out of the country). All that to say the Buddhist monks (more than one) were immolating themselves in protest against their own government (South Vietnam), for not giving them a voice in the government. Were they in pain? Yes, for a few seconds. Did they had they suffer? Yes, the whole reason for the immolation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 16:42:21 GMT -5
I think it was ZD who said it was a matter of semantics whether pain is suffering, so we'll leave it the dictionary then: "the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2018 16:50:57 GMT -5
I think it was ZD who said it was a matter of semantics whether pain is suffering, so we'll leave it the dictionary then: "the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship." No, it's quite simple (but it is by definition). Pain is physical. Suffering is psychological (connected with self). ....and there is psychological suffering which-can-be worse than physical pain. (Severe enough physical pain, you pass out).
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 24, 2018 17:16:08 GMT -5
I think it was ZD who said it was a matter of semantics whether pain is suffering, so we'll leave it the dictionary then: "the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship." No, it's quite simple (but it is by definition). Pain is physical. Suffering is psychological (connected with self). ....and there is psychological suffering which-can-be worse than physical pain. (Severe enough physical pain, you pass out). Pain - from where ever it arises - is just pain, until it is no longer tolerable. Now, it becomes suffering.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2018 17:30:32 GMT -5
No, it's quite simple (but it is by definition). Pain is physical. Suffering is psychological (connected with self). ....and there is psychological suffering which-can-be worse than physical pain. (Severe enough physical pain, you pass out). Pain - from where ever it arises - is just pain, until it is no longer tolerable. Now, it becomes suffering. But with that outlook the end of suffering isn't really a possibility because events can always conspire to make pain unbearable.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 24, 2018 17:33:24 GMT -5
Pain - from where ever it arises - is just pain, until it is no longer tolerable. Now, it becomes suffering. But with that outlook the end of suffering isn't really a possibility because events can always conspire to make pain unbearable. No outlook expressed here. Only the bare bottom fact for SDP to find.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2018 17:35:23 GMT -5
But with that outlook the end of suffering isn't really a possibility because events can always conspire to make pain unbearable. No outlook expressed here. Only the bare bottom fact for SDP to find. Making simple-simple of the words in this case just makes it easy for him not to look. This is a rug that demands pulling.
|
|