|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 22:16:26 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. Thanks. This states my position well, which is that pain is not suffering and is fundamentally sensation only when lacking mind/body identification. The presence of this mental 'me' structure is essential to the subjective interpretation of pain as suffering. : Rory: "I’d been working with the assumption that nibbana and dukkha were somehow mutually exclusive, Yes absolutely they are, and in ways that are even unimaginable to one who is not himself arahat! The physical pain experienced by an arahat is lacking any reactionary emotional stress or the slightest sense of regret or grief, or wish or desire that the painful event, however much great, did not occur. And it is also said that the intensity of the painful sensation is itself qualitatively reduced for an arahat (more like discomfort), because of the absence of emotional attachment and spontaneity in the mind, the very thing which magnifies painful sensations for the unenlightened in the first place, and the evidence of which is found in how, in certain exceptional situations, even normal people, such as a soldier or a sportsperson for example, are able to miraculously transcend their extreme physical injury and pursue with battle or game with perfect attention and self-application. This is the very normal and continual state of an arahat. Immeasurable bliss! Freedom Incomparable! Adoration!"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 22:23:14 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." We're discussing some subtle, controversial and little understood aspects of suffering, and really should not leave it to the dictionary to bring out those subtleties.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:01:43 GMT -5
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. I don't know about the average enlightened Joe, and I don't mean to take a hard position, but sensation should not be viewed as proportional to the gruesomeness of the conditions or the level of imagined suffering involved while watching it, but rather like the volume control on your stereo that simply won't go above 10 no matter what. There is no biological reason for it to do so as it serves it's purpose admirably by then. To the dismay of the human torture community, there is a limit to how much pain can be caused no matter how creative they are in it's production.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:05:12 GMT -5
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. Ah, but there are also cracks in the floor under the rug. One never knows what might slip through. :-) In this case most of the cracks have been filled by dirt that has been 'swept under the rug' for years. (How much further do you think we can strain this analogy?)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:09:19 GMT -5
By definition, suffering is a problem for the sufferer. That's why he calls it suffering instead of 'having a really good time'. I think I mentioned once that I took drugs of different kinds in my late adolescence. There were times when the bliss and the love was so very intense, that it actually did come with a quality of suffering. It was just too much. I was still 'having a good time' though. Feelings, emotions and experience in general is just messier than you are portraying, but I understand there is value in simplifying the subject too. Messy is just mind's way of feeling at home, but either you suffered from the mess you made or you did not. You never did both.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:15:25 GMT -5
It's not about committing to a decision. Sometimes it makes sense to change your mind, and even if it doesn't, it's fine. It's about making one decision at a time instead of two conflicting ones. The latter predictably leads to conflict. right, but very rarely do changes of mind just instantly happen out of the blue. Most often there is a build up in the level of incongruence with the current decision. In two days, I have to let my landlady know if I want to stay on another month. I have made no decision, the two potentials play around my mind a bit in a semi-confusing way, though I sense in my heart what will unfold. In fact, that decision will never actually get made. What will happen is, she comes to see me, and then I tell her what I tell her, and then that's that. At no point will there have been an actual decision. The only thing I am ever really doing these days is 'reading the flow' and acting on that reading. So when someone asks me about a future decision, I will tend to say something like...''this is what I guess will happen''. That's cool n all, but getting back to the topic; the split mind is about wanting two incompatible things at once, and being distressed by the fact that they don't both happen. This is a fundamental immaturity at best, and insanity at worst, but more to the point, it is always unconscious behavior.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:17:55 GMT -5
At this point I'm tempted to discuss the difference between pre and post enlightenment in terms of that personal story. Assuming post enlightenment means not suffering, there is still a personal story there that we can say is at least involved as that of the animals, and a sense of self. What there is not is mind/body identification. Agree largely with the bolded. In my words, we no longer believe that we are principally a body/mind. So if there can be a personal story and a sense of self, but no suffering because there is no mind/body identification, then the same can be true of the lower animals.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:19:37 GMT -5
And it relates to resisting resistance how? In the presence of the white hat cowboy, no suffering. In the presence of the black hat cowboy, the horse suffers (because of its memory). And it relates to resisting resistance how?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:26:59 GMT -5
When you are lifting a heavy weight, you experience a sense of resistance, right? Your body is saying....'put it down, it's heavy!'. But the apparent chooser says...'No, I desire to lift this weight'. That's a positive example of resisting the resistance. You see value in lifting the heavy weight, so you over-ride the resistance, and I guess your muscles grow as a result. I see value in most exercise partly because it teaches 'self'-discipline and mastery of mind. When you do something that extends your limitations everything stops and there is only this lift. There is significant pain but the skill is being conscious of the body sans the adverse reaction. If the mind gets in the way, you become very miserable and quit training. It is very difficult to continually progress because the overload has to continually increase to stimulate further adaption. Getting stronger is only an adaption to stress. Sometime a lifter will reach a 'plateau', and regardless of diligent training, can not increase the weight lifted. They then have to examine their training program and make alterations to shock the body in new ways to create just the right kind of stress to force an adaption. The mistake you are making is equating 'resistance training' with psychological resistance. Resistance training is finding ways to produce the stress which best forces an adaption - and a significant reduction in psychological resistance is integral to that end. In the lifting game, pain is gain. In the psychological game resistance to pain is the avoidance of suffering - and that backfires every time. Zacklee
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 23:52:41 GMT -5
Indeed. Would you say that's your path? Merely 1/2 the path. That which needs to be lost is an obstruction to what-can-be (but not now is). It's a matter of energy. To maintain the false requires energy and superfluously wastes energy, this takes place unconsciously. This ~deconstruction~ (Simone Weil's word, she knew of Gurdjieff's teaching through Madame de Saltzmann, and most of her mysticism is based on-this. See her Gravity & Grace) necessarily takes place only consciously. The ~new~ is built from this energy, transformed (In Alchemy this is symbolized as turning lead into gold). Without this transformation deconstruction In and of Itself means nothing. The reason I asked you about your path is that I see it as one of acquisition. The one who dies with the most books on his shelf and the tallest layer cakes in the freezer wins. No, judgment, really, just an observation. I have also said the point is to lose something every day, and I know full well what it means. It doesn't mean empty yourself out so that you can make room for growth producing stuff. It means empty yourself of the false so that only the truth remains. As Niz says "See the false as false and reject it. You must unlearn everything. God is the end of all desire and knowledge."
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2018 4:23:43 GMT -5
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). So the 'spiritual thinking that we get lost in' is intuition and instinct? That doesn't make sense to me. No, the opposite. When we get lost in spiritual thinking, we ignore intuition/instinct. I must be saying something that is confusing you, but I'm not sure what.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2018 4:26:27 GMT -5
When you are lifting a heavy weight, you experience a sense of resistance, right? Your body is saying....'put it down, it's heavy!'. But the apparent chooser says...'No, I desire to lift this weight'. That's a positive example of resisting the resistance. You see value in lifting the heavy weight, so you over-ride the resistance, and I guess your muscles grow as a result. I see value in most exercise partly because it teaches 'self'-discipline and mastery of mind. When you do something that extends your limitations everything stops and there is only this lift. There is significant pain but the skill is being conscious of the body sans the adverse reaction. If the mind gets in the way, you become very miserable and quit training. It is very difficult to continually progress because the overload has to continually increase to stimulate further adaption. Getting stronger is only an adaption to stress. Sometime a lifter will reach a 'plateau', and regardless of diligent training, can not increase the weight lifted. They then have to examine their training program and make alterations to shock the body in new ways to create just the right kind of stress to force an adaption. The mistake you are making is equating 'resistance training' with psychological resistance. Resistance training is finding ways to produce the stress which best forces an adaption - and a significant reduction in psychological resistance is integral to that end. In the lifting game, pain is gain. In the psychological game resistance to pain is the avoidance of suffering - and that backfires every time. I'm saying that ultimately, all resistance is physical-psychological resistance, yes. With that said, I also believe that speaking of physical resistance and psychological resistance as being more separated can be useful, so as to explore the workings of the psychology.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2018 4:32:53 GMT -5
I think I mentioned once that I took drugs of different kinds in my late adolescence. There were times when the bliss and the love was so very intense, that it actually did come with a quality of suffering. It was just too much. I was still 'having a good time' though. Feelings, emotions and experience in general is just messier than you are portraying, but I understand there is value in simplifying the subject too. Messy is just mind's way of feeling at home, but either you suffered from the mess you made or you did not. You never did both. I disagree. I'll give you another example. I used to play rugby, which was physically and psychologically hard. Every game was suffering from beginning to end. And yet, when the team were playing exceptionally well, and functioning as a very cohesive unit, there was a joy...perhaps even an exquisiteness....to the experience. As I said, I guess you see suffering, by definition as 'being in hell'. For me it is usually a lot more subtle than that. Most folks are suffering to some slight extent, most of the time, but it is off set by other feelings.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2018 4:41:30 GMT -5
right, but very rarely do changes of mind just instantly happen out of the blue. Most often there is a build up in the level of incongruence with the current decision. In two days, I have to let my landlady know if I want to stay on another month. I have made no decision, the two potentials play around my mind a bit in a semi-confusing way, though I sense in my heart what will unfold. In fact, that decision will never actually get made. What will happen is, she comes to see me, and then I tell her what I tell her, and then that's that. At no point will there have been an actual decision. The only thing I am ever really doing these days is 'reading the flow' and acting on that reading. So when someone asks me about a future decision, I will tend to say something like...''this is what I guess will happen''. That's cool n all, but getting back to the topic; the split mind is about wanting two incompatible things at once, and being distressed by the fact that they don't both happen. This is a fundamental immaturity at best, and insanity at worst, but more to the point, it is always unconscious behavior. Well all I can say is that I am often exploring two (or more) options at once, but it's very rarely distressful. Mostly I am curious about how it will play out. Even when there is a building incongruence in regard to something happening, my experience is mostly curiosity...an awareness that at some point that new action will happen, but knowing that that won't happen....until it happens. That's how it is for me on these forums at times after a prolonged and intense conversation. I can be aware of a sense of 'being moved off a forum'... a sense of heaviness, a sense of not really wanting to continue with the conversation, even a sense of resistance to being there....but then I'm also aware that the energy has to play itself out. I would say there is a mild suffering involved...a bit of a 'chore' quality to it, but not a big deal. I log in until the movement to log in is just no longer there. I can perhaps only recall once that I made a 'decision' to leave a forum.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2018 4:44:55 GMT -5
Agree largely with the bolded. In my words, we no longer believe that we are principally a body/mind. So if there can be a personal story and a sense of self, but no suffering because there is no mind/body identification, then the same can be true of the lower animals. Well I didn't say there was no suffering without that belief. Without that belief, we are still subject to being being human, mammalian etc. The basic needs (both tangible and intangible) remain the same, so the capacity to suffer still remains. How we handle, and experience suffering will likely change though. For example, when there is pain, we are likely to handle it differently.
|
|