|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 21:35:36 GMT -5
If nothing else, the point I would like to make is that when you've got a 50db emotional amplifier attached to the output of your physical amplifier, you really don't know what 10 feels like with that emotional amp switched off. I know from personal experience that the difference can be quite dramatic. I'm going to guess you've never had a severe infection or a kidney stone. The biggest obstacle to getting these ideas across is peep's attachment to the suffering they have endured and refusal to entertain any idea that might diminish it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 21:44:02 GMT -5
What does it even mean to say 'the energy has to play itself out'? YOU are playing it out because you want to be on the forum and you don't. Since you don't want to make one choice and let the other one go, there is a 'mild suffering involved' and a need to blame your childish wants on 'an energy that needs to play out'. There isn't a you playing it out. There are two (or more) autopilot impulses playing out (pre-programmed/conditioned impulses), neither one a you. Neither one is ~real~. So to say the energy is playing out, is correct. To say the energy has to play itself out is incorrect. If you were to see and understand what I'm saying, the 'energy' of conflicting desires would cease instantly and effortlessly. And don't give me the 'there is no you who can make a choice' story. When it's in your interest you'll argue against it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 22:00:56 GMT -5
A goal to play out all of your desires, (responsibly?), is a recipe for suffering, and not only irresponsible, but childish and immature. Along with biological self awareness comes the response-ability to choose wisely and sanely so as to mitigate the suffering that inevitably results from that internal conflict. The lower animals that lack self awareness don't have that problem. You can't imitate those animals as your mind works differently, and if you try you just start behaving like an animal. You DO have the capacity to make a choice. When I have some time, I'll explain what nonvolition really means. *Your desires aren't bigger than you, they are your creations. I'm not suggesting you not want what you want. I'm suggesting you can't have two mutually exclusive things at the same time. A sign of maturity is being able to choose one and let the other one go completely. Reading, I was just about to say Andrew understands nonvolition better than you do. I'll still say it *, Andrew understands nonviolition better than you do. Why do you choose to do that? It's ugly and serves no purpose. Nonvolition doesn't mean you can't choose. If you don't believe me, pay attention the next time you make a choice, which should be in a second or two.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 27, 2018 6:32:15 GMT -5
We'll have to agree to disagree if your bottom line is that the end of suffering means pain can never get to a point of being intolerable, and there are plenty of examples available to illustrate this other than torture. I had to go to an emergency room once because I spilled tea on myself. Granted that this was years before I got all enlightened and stuff, but I'm firmly attached to my inflexible mental position that self-realization doesn't immunize oneself from their own clumsiness. Well, the examples presuppose that you're more enlightened than the average Joe, and quite simply, I don't know that to be the case. Aw, see now I'll have to follow you around the internets for the next 10 years debating you into realizing just how wrong you are. Aces. Thanks. As I say, no hard line here, just an attempt to try to pry apart the physical from the emotional a bit and see if those extremes that we love so dearly are really slam dunks after all. What appears to us as our bodies are apparently limited in their capacity to sense, so in relative terms, noone's capacity for pain is unlimited. But to define suffering in terms of unbearable pain is one of those equations I insist on burning down .. like "suffering = pain + struggle" or "pain + resistance" etc.. The example I gave isn't dependent on emotion for the point I was making. People are interested in those extremes because they're naturally skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. The idea of intolerable pain is obviously a valid one because people will tell you when they've experienced or are experiencing it. In describing the extremes there's no other option but to resort to notions that implicate emotion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the experience involves emoting as it's happening. In fact, if the physical pain gets bad enough there's just no room for it any longer. The distinction between pain and suffering is naturally one of extremes. When folks like Spira or Katie use it to point to how emotional pain is optional, they often start with something easy, like a dude whose team loses a game or a political activist whose candidate loses or a kid who doesn't get their toy. These examples are also extreme, but just from the other end of the spectrum as to the components of physical/emotional pain in the suffering mix. The extremity starts with abstracting two notions that each directly relate, in very different ways, to the pointing of the ineffable. The abstraction can be very helpful and useful, but the efficacy of the distinction between pain and suffering is lost out at the limits of physical pain, absent emotion, .
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 27, 2018 8:02:31 GMT -5
Well, the examples presuppose that you're more enlightened than the average Joe, and quite simply, I don't know that to be the case. Aw, see now I'll have to follow you around the internets for the next 10 years debating you into realizing just how wrong you are. Aces. Thanks. Hey don't worry! You have the cape!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 9:34:05 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." this convo is primarily about definitions, and definitions are extremely artificial and rather rigidly bounded. In the real world definitions become less important than direct experience. It was a different post where he spoke about back pain and being in the hospital. He conceded that physical pain could be called "suffering" and described it as a matter of "semantics." I heard an interesting discussion on this topic once. This gentleman who dealt with chronic, excruciating physical pain (suffering) talked about learning to cope with it. He described his process as putting salt in glass of water versus putting salt in a lake. He got to the point where the pain was diluted by the expanse of his perspective. He used different words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 9:42:58 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. If you concede, it'll end your suffering.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 27, 2018 12:04:01 GMT -5
Well, the examples presuppose that you're more enlightened than the average Joe, and quite simply, I don't know that to be the case. Aw, see now I'll have to follow you around the internets for the next 10 years debating you into realizing just how wrong you are. Aces. Thanks. As I say, no hard line here, just an attempt to try to pry apart the physical from the emotional a bit and see if those extremes that we love so dearly are really slam dunks after all. What appears to us as our bodies are apparently limited in their capacity to sense, so in relative terms, noone's capacity for pain is unlimited. But to define suffering in terms of unbearable pain is one of those equations I insist on burning down .. like "suffering = pain + struggle" or "pain + resistance" etc.. The example I gave isn't dependent on emotion for the point I was making. People are interested in those extremes because they're naturally skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. The idea of intolerable pain is obviously a valid one because people will tell you when they've experienced or are experiencing it. In describing the extremes there's no other option but to resort to notions that implicate emotion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the experience involves emoting as it's happening. In fact, if the physical pain gets bad enough there's just no room for it any longer. The distinction between pain and suffering is naturally one of extremes. When folks like Spira or Katie use it to point to how emotional pain is optional, they often start with something easy, like a dude whose team loses a game or a political activist whose candidate loses or a kid who doesn't get their toy. These examples are also extreme, but just from the other end of the spectrum as to the components of physical/emotional pain in the suffering mix. The extremity starts with abstracting two notions that each directly relate, in very different ways, to the pointing of the ineffable. The abstraction can be very helpful and useful, but the efficacy of the distinction between pain and suffering is lost out at the limits of physical pain, absent emotion, . I think we're clear on this, but just to be sure, the actual physical sensation of pain is almost never just physical.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 27, 2018 12:08:12 GMT -5
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. If you concede, it'll end your suffering. I don't know what you mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 15:57:59 GMT -5
To me the poem below explains loss with or without suffering. It helps me see a less narrow understanding.
The Dakini Speaks My friends, let’s grow up. Let’s stop pretending we don’t know the deal here. Or if we truly haven’t noticed, let’s wake up and notice. Look: Everything that can be lost, will be lost. It’s simple — how could we have missed it for so long? Let’s grieve our losses fully, like ripe human beings, But please, let’s not be so shocked by them. Let’s not act so betrayed, As though life had broken her secret promise to us. Impermanence is life’s only promise to us, And she keeps it with ruthless impeccability. To a child she seems cruel, but she is only wild, And her compassion exquisitely precise: Brilliantly penetrating, luminous with truth, She strips away the unreal to show us the real. This is the true ride — let’s give ourselves to it! Let’s stop making deals for a safe passage: There isn’t one anyway, and the cost is too high. We are not children anymore. The true human adult gives everything for what cannot be lost. Let’s dance the wild dance of no hope! by Jennifer Welwood
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 27, 2018 16:53:14 GMT -5
If you concede, it'll end your suffering. I don't know what you mean. I think he's sort of punning at you -- if you surrender to equating pain with suffering then your suffering at wanting to argue that this is wrong will end.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 27, 2018 16:54:47 GMT -5
Aw, see now I'll have to follow you around the internets for the next 10 years debating you into realizing just how wrong you are. Aces. Thanks. What appears to us as our bodies are apparently limited in their capacity to sense, so in relative terms, noone's capacity for pain is unlimited. But to define suffering in terms of unbearable pain is one of those equations I insist on burning down .. like "suffering = pain + struggle" or "pain + resistance" etc.. The example I gave isn't dependent on emotion for the point I was making. People are interested in those extremes because they're naturally skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. The idea of intolerable pain is obviously a valid one because people will tell you when they've experienced or are experiencing it. In describing the extremes there's no other option but to resort to notions that implicate emotion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the experience involves emoting as it's happening. In fact, if the physical pain gets bad enough there's just no room for it any longer. The distinction between pain and suffering is naturally one of extremes. When folks like Spira or Katie use it to point to how emotional pain is optional, they often start with something easy, like a dude whose team loses a game or a political activist whose candidate loses or a kid who doesn't get their toy. These examples are also extreme, but just from the other end of the spectrum as to the components of physical/emotional pain in the suffering mix. The extremity starts with abstracting two notions that each directly relate, in very different ways, to the pointing of the ineffable. The abstraction can be very helpful and useful, but the efficacy of the distinction between pain and suffering is lost out at the limits of physical pain, absent emotion, . I think we're clear on this, but just to be sure, the actual physical sensation of pain is almost never just physical. Yes, I agree with that. And it's a layered truth. It's easy to see how pain leads to thoughts about not just the pain but all sorts of other subjects. At it's deepest, the idea implicates the foundation of the notion of physicality to begin with. This is why a quiet, spacious state of mind is one where the tolerance for pain is relatively higher. It seems to me that this is where the interest in the extremes comes from. An interest in focusing on what the subjective description is when the physical sensations are obviously dominant in the scenario. It's similar -- from a different angle -- to your interest in prying apart the physical and the emotional components to pain and suffering.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 27, 2018 17:22:55 GMT -5
Reading, I was just about to say Andrew understands nonvolition better than you do. I'll still say it *, Andrew understands nonviolition better than you do. Why do you choose to do that? It's ugly and serves no purpose. Nonvolition doesn't mean you can't choose. If you don't believe me, pay attention the next time you make a choice, which should be in a second or two. Your post explains everything. (If you can't do other than what you do, there is no choice involved). What I said was in no way nasty, just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 27, 2018 18:55:24 GMT -5
I think we're clear on this, but just to be sure, the actual physical sensation of pain is almost never just physical. Yes, I agree with that. And it's a layered truth. It's easy to see how pain leads to thoughts about not just the pain but all sorts of other subjects. At it's deepest, the idea implicates the foundation of the notion of physicality to begin with. This is why a quiet, spacious state of mind is one where the tolerance for pain is relatively higher. It seems to me that this is where the interest in the extremes comes from. An interest in focusing on what the subjective description is when the physical sensations are obviously dominant in the scenario. It's similar -- from a different angle -- to your interest in prying apart the physical and the emotional components to pain and suffering. Peeps feel like they have endured, and want to be acknowledged for that. May be more of a male thang, not sure.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 27, 2018 19:22:58 GMT -5
Why do you choose to do that? It's ugly and serves no purpose. Nonvolition doesn't mean you can't choose. If you don't believe me, pay attention the next time you make a choice, which should be in a second or two. Your post explains everything. (If you can't do other than what you do, there is no choice involved). What I said was in no way nasty, just a fact. Choices are made even when you don't believe choice is involved. What you do is already what you want to do (given the apparent limitations in play). Why would you want to do other than what you want to do, and why would you do it even if you could? The whole notion that there should be something operating independently of it's experience is misconceived. It would make no sense to do so. This is life responding to life. Don't pretend there's nothing here that can respond. When you say 'others understand better than you do', you're voicing an opinion based on your own understanding, and not a fact. As such, stating that opinion just looks like a way to champion your opinion by putting others down rather than trying to support your opinion in some meaningful way.
|
|