|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 12:07:23 GMT -5
Well that's a particular example in which you have discovered that what you have believed is a lie, but even there, I'm not sure the desire to meet him actually falls away, hence why kids experience 'disappointment' and maybe even 'betrayal' when they find out they've been lied to by their parents. That same desire is either suppressed, or it expresses itself a different way. It's discovering that what you desired can't happen, same as choosing one desire and 'discovering' that the contradictory one can't be fulfilled. It would be insane for the child to continue to want to meet Santa, but children aren't as insane as adults. Well again, an animal would not have the thought...'that CAN'T be fulfilled'. That would actually be an example of 'psychological suffering' I would say. But if you DO have that thought, then I can see why there would then be a movement to try and let the desire go.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 12:10:03 GMT -5
Just because you don't notice something in mind or body doesn't mean it's not there. Most of the time we only notice what is dominant, hence why if folks noticed that they are often experiencing a level of existential suffering, they would probably look closely at it. For the most part though, it is a quiet undercurrent of acceptable stress or dissatisfaction. How hard is it to check and see if you're resisting lifting the cup to your lips? Or is it hidden away in the unconscious because it's just too terrible to face? I quite often find it kinda hard work to get the cup from the table and put it too my lips I'm lost as to what we are arguing actually. So can I check something here....is your argument still that babies and animals cannot suffer? If not, can you clarify your argument and I'm sure the movement will support me in going there with you hehe.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 12:11:34 GMT -5
Yeah, but I'm asking where desires springs from. Or are you saying, desire is the product of two forces? In which case...to go with your idea of 'essence'....maybe essence has a kind of 'resonation' with certain things, and the result of this resonation is 'desire'. Look like you may have the makings for a 3-layer cake if you mix it really well. yeah, that's definitely a 3 layer cake recipe, but to be fair, a three layer cake can be more appetizing than a 2 layer cake at times.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 12:16:16 GMT -5
well to be honest, when I made the point about provoking, it was just an after thought, it wasn't something I said that was meant to be of consequence to the thread. But the difference between provocation and challenge, might be that a challenge is a questioning of one's belief systems, whereas a provocation is more about trying to instigate a felt reaction in another. So, yeah, the challenged belief system can feel provoked if it is identified with, right? If there is a central character (thing) of self that is unconsciously believed to be at the core of - the thought structure (via memory/wired synapses of the brain) and
- felt existence (wired synapses of the hormone system/body)
to which things happen.... Well I think there's a number of factors in why/when a challenge can be experienced as a provocation. First and foremost, there has to be belief that ideas have some sort of value (personally, I believe they do). Secondly, there has to be a belief that what the challenger is saying has some kind of negative consequence, and this negative consequence is measured in terms of the individual's values. Simply, all humans have values, and when their values are challenged, it can get emotional. HOW emotional it gets will depend on what those values are.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 12:20:07 GMT -5
I am offended by some of the positions taken on this forum and regardless of whether I consider myself a separate self or whether I step back and say hey I am offended by myself, causing my own offense here, fool, and laugh, I still feel that little nudge of displeasure at what that part of me wants to label "arrogance." Basically, what I've done is divided reality in two yet again. Which me, well of course, the mind, not the True Self. Bummer. I strongly suspect I am not alone. That positions here prick notions of what we hold to be true. And we defend these notions tooth and nail. I have a strong suspicion that all notions or ideas about reality ultimately fail. This is a lesson I am learning. The camps here, on this forum, as in my mind, are clearly delineated. So I hear my "sensei" long dead say. "O bakatari" whenever we tried to "discuss' notions of enlightenment, SR. And things get split yet again. "Chop wood, carry water." And shut up, not to you folks, but to myself. Maybe, but for some one at my stage of "evolving" if there is such a thing, even if there is such a thing as enlightenment. It's better to stay focused on the simple, every day things. It feels freeing. Not to say I'm not drawn to this type of discourse. I am. Figure that, but as in my zazen whenever these kinds of notion come up, I revert to focusing on my breath. In my practice, without me even thinking about it, I have gradually developed great skepticism at the notion that I will ever "figure it all out." Or even that it will somehow make sense.
That's my experience (the bolded) The only thing I ever have figured out are tangible things like...how to use the remote control lol. Same really for 'making sense'....I can understand what people say and mean, I can even have insights about the nature of life that make sense in the moment. But then it's gone, because it was just in that moment. I don't think 'it' is MEANT to be figured out and make sense. It's a constant moment by moment fumble. Preferably an enjoyable one I guess.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 1, 2018 12:38:34 GMT -5
Interesting that I've posted photos recently of "magical children". I will look into this book. Thanks. Yeah, I do think there's much to be said for genetic predispositions that we don't quite yet know about. That said, it is impossible to refute the power of cultural/social conditioning and how such factors can either open or close doors in the flow of experience. The fact that the conditioning is at play in every waking hour gives credence to the search for what causes or gives rise to suffering. You are touching on a very complex set of other issues that are treated in sociology classes with respect to the development of a social self. Perhaps that whole other discussion can be saved for another thread. But to cut to the point of self and its relation to suffering, we'd prolly wanna look at the "symbolic interaction" aspect: self concept, the looking glass self, significant others, etc. This area of focus is ripe with finely layered substrata of mental constructs and imagined beliefs which, in turn, give rise to the narrative of personalized story. To the tune of truthiness, it's fair to say that, within the sphere of the psycho-physical in which interaction and/or intra-action take place, there are form, senses, and perception at play. Additionally, at least as far as creatures with some semblance of brains and/or cognition, there is some modicum of mental activity that gets translated into memory, instinct, bodily changes, etc. In the human species, there's has even evolved the possibility to become aware of our selves objectively and in relation to apparent others. Woweezowee! It is that notable mental activity that we are mostly concerned with in this ongoing discussion. It is there that something in the psycho-physical has been perhaps miss-wired, not yet noticed, and not fully realized in its exceptional pervasiveness. The projected mental construct is centered on an imagined self, maintained through a seemingly infinite number of inter-related conceptualized things including a value/belief/worldview system that makes up our conditioned lives. The attention lost to that projected worldview (filtered through the conditioning) ignores the wholeness from which it ALL arises. As such, the experience of an otherwise simple "As It Is 'Reality'", is based on, filtered through and then pivots on that illusionary world that is centered on a self. All physicality and psychological expression is sensed, perceived, interpreted, acknowledged, rationalized, felt, limited, minimized, and then imagined as the life around what it thinks it is. That narrative of self, when believed and not seen through - is delusional, and is the story of the separate self that suffers.Suffering can be seen for what it is. Putting the realization out of reach is indicative of the mind's amazing capacity for distraction. Pulling our attention into that story begins the fall. The illusion, taking on a life of its own, does not want to die and can only live by the power given to it. Bringing the dynamic into greater awareness brings about discernment of truth. There's a qualitative shift that happens upon seeing through the divisive illusion of self. In clarity, the psycho-physical sense of being can and does live on as an expression that is conscious of its wholeness. Yes and yes. Astute. And yes again, and likewise astute. (And may come back to this later). I'd say MC is a quite profound and amazing book. (JCP later came to study the effects of TV watching on kids, came to the conclusion that for kids under 11 TV watching should be severely limited, as it does *too much of the work* for the developing brain. If I recall, that goes back to the '80's. [See his Evolution's End: Claiming the Potential of Our Intelligence]. He was probably horrified at today's smart phones and video games, and the time kids spend on-them). So, what is the illusion of self when seen for what it is? Can existence experienced, as the play of senses, perception, feeling, memory..., go on happening without a self/thing?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 1, 2018 14:22:30 GMT -5
Yes and yes. Astute. And yes again, and likewise astute. (And may come back to this later). I'd say MC is a quite profound and amazing book. (JCP later came to study the effects of TV watching on kids, came to the conclusion that for kids under 11 TV watching should be severely limited, as it does *too much of the work* for the developing brain. If I recall, that goes back to the '80's. [See his Evolution's End: Claiming the Potential of Our Intelligence]. He was probably horrified at today's smart phones and video games, and the time kids spend on-them). So, what is the illusion of self when seen for what it is? Can existence experienced, as the play of senses, perception, feeling, memory..., go on happening without a self/thing? OK, for me self is different than for most people on ST's, and this causes trouble because everybody reads me in terms of how they see self, will not look at my posts in my own terms. So, to clarify: For me, we are born as a seed of potential, not-a-self, but a potential self. This what we are born as/with is called essence. It is said that at this point, essence is active. I also call it true self from time to time. If essence grows to maturity then this is our true individuality. So at birth essence begins to grow and mature via ordinary food, air and impressions (sensory impressions). A child lives-through what-is-their-own, essence. However, for most people (people who live apart from ~complex~ cultural, that is, people who live in a primitive rural setting, or indigenous peoples, "native" people, live more-from essence, and remain more-in essence), personality/ego, or cultural self, begins to form at an early age and eventually covers-over and "smothers" essence, takes the food that should go to essence, so in effect essence ceases to grow. Data/memory from experience, cultural influences, experience with other people. is stored in the neural structure as connections between neurons. This information forms an artificial self, what-is-not-one's-own, personality/ego/persona/mask/cultural self/false sense of self/false self, what we eventually call our self. When personality/ego/persona/cultural self has formed and covered over essence, essence is now passive and personality/etc is active. This self is not illusory in the sense it doesn't exist, it exists in a very real way as connections between neurons. But it is illusory in the sense that it is not our Real self. Our Real self is essence which is almost completely covered over by the age of about six. So everybody is a ~mixture~ of false self and true self, essence, the ratio of false to true depends upon how covered-over true self (essence) is. Most people live the remainder of their lives through this false sense of self, never recovering/uncovering/"remembering" their true (in potential) individuality, so never maturing into the self we can be. A major aspect of this living and one's attention and awareness being captured and held by people, places, things, by thoughts, feelings/emotions and actions. So all that allows an answer to your questions:It's difficult to begin to see, to distinguish, between this false sense of self and one's actual self, the latter still in "embryo" for most people. But eventually, possibly years even given the correct methods to do so, it's possible to discover for oneself what is one's essence. (In my tradition this isn't described beforehand). The beginning of the process is called self-study, it is the study/observation of one's body (sensing) and bodily actions, feelings/emotions and thoughts. Because, all-that one thinks, feels and does, belongs to the false self. The contents of the mind, feelings and learned bodily doing/actions, that is, the contents/memory/data stored in the neural-structure-connections, constitute the false(illusory) self. I've shared all of the above over the years here on ST's. Your second question:We are born with the senses functioning, so the body-senses belong to essence, as defined (this is called the instinctive center). For the baby/small child perception would also then belong to essence, as they are not yet distorted. Further, you can gather from the information above that feeling and memory are part of what constitute the self (the false self), along with all learned bodily movements; postures, gestures etc. After reaching the age of about six, our perceptions no longer fall directly upon essence, but now fall upon the contents of the centers, the information stored in the neural connections, which can now distort even perceptions. But, generally, all incoming information is now ~ seen through~ the filter that is self (false self), that is, we don't see what's actually out-there, we only see "reality" as it comes-through the distorting filter that-is-self. This is easy to see in other people, most difficult to see in ourselves. And then we-act-from the information stored, that is, we react almost inevitably, "garbage in, garbage out". The spiritual journey is about making personality/ego/cultural self passive, and essence active, again. So, just to add, I can agree with 95% of the non-dual ~teaching~/perspective, I just interpret it in another way. But basically, it does not give the full picture of ~What Is~. (It only discusses What Is, not what-can-be, what is possible).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 1, 2018 14:37:33 GMT -5
I have heard accounts of people remembering being born, you can probably google it. There is a person there, present from birth. So a person that can suffer. But that's not what we usually call a 'person' around here. Persons are illusions and illusions can't suffer. That's a hard pill for me to swallow, as over 7 billion people on earth, suffer.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 1, 2018 15:06:35 GMT -5
Desire is based on attraction via like or repulsion via dislike, emotional. Most "decisions" are emotional, and the job of the intellect is to supply reasons, ex post facto. (Of course all of this is done unconsciously, that is, subconsciously, the meaning behind "nonvolition"). Emotions aren't formed in the mind? Like and dislike aren't formed in the mind? The human body/brain is formed on-top-of what is (maybe falsely) called Darwinian evolution. All life is based on the same genetic structure. So human brain structure is based on that which came-before. We know reptiles 'came first'. Part of our own human brain, is based upon the reptilian brain. This is our spinal column which connects with the base of the brain. All the function reptiles have, we also have, this brain is responsible for sensing and walking and running, etc. Next came the mammalian brain, or the limbic system. Reptiles don't have emotions as they have no mammalian brain. Mammals have emotions, if you've ever had a pet you know this. Mammals do not abstract. And so covering the two lower brains is in humans the neocortex, responsible for abstract thought (and the fore-brain also responsible for the monkey-mind/roof brain chatter/the internal dialogue). So, we have three "minds", so yes, like and dislike are formed in the mind, but in the mammalian "mind"(brain). The fact that mammals have emotions should show anyone that there is a distinct difference in function between emotions and abstract thought (which mammals don't have, they "think" [and they do think] by representations, images). Like and dislike come from the mammalian brain, the emotional brain. www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/triune-brain
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 15:09:10 GMT -5
This is quite an astute observation. So there can never be ~proof~ for the existence of God. Any proof would always be individually subjectively objective. I withdrew my original post because upon rereading it I saw it is as a kind of indirect attack on folks who disagreed with me. I'm not smart enough to get the term "individually subjectively objective." Not astute at all. I have enjoyed your posts on QM.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 1, 2018 15:14:48 GMT -5
This is quite an astute observation. So there can never be ~proof~ for the existence of God. Any proof would always be individually subjectively objective. I withdrew my original post because upon rereading it I saw it is as a kind of indirect attack on folks who disagreed with me. I'm not smart enough to get the term "individually subjectively objective." Not astute at all. I have enjoyed your posts on QM. I will delete my copy, if you want me to. .....But I think this not being able to prove the existence of God, is deliberate (on "God's" part). The individually subjectively objective simply means you can prove it to yourself, but you can't demonstrate it to others. And thanks about QM, I love the exploration, of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 15:27:13 GMT -5
I withdrew my original post because upon rereading it I saw it is as a kind of indirect attack on folks who disagreed with me. I'm not smart enough to get the term "individually subjectively objective." Not astute at all. I have enjoyed your posts on QM. I will delete my copy, if you want me to. .....But I think this not being able to prove the existence of God, is deliberate (on "God's" part). The individually subjectively objective simply means you can prove it to yourself, but you can't demonstrate it to others. And thanks about QM, I love the exploration, of. Please delete it. I agree with you. The probability that a valid proof for the existence of God is out there and no one has set upon is close to zero.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 15:34:30 GMT -5
I withdrew my original post because upon rereading it I saw it is as a kind of indirect attack on folks who disagreed with me. I'm not smart enough to get the term "individually subjectively objective." Not astute at all. I have enjoyed your posts on QM. I will delete my copy, if you want me to. .....But I think this not being able to prove the existence of God, is deliberate (on "God's" part). The individually subjectively objective simply means you can prove it to yourself, but you can't demonstrate it to others. And thanks about QM, I love the exploration, of. Goedel holds the door open still, not for the proof, but for God's existence. He proved that in any closed system there is at least one truth that is unprovable.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 1, 2018 15:41:57 GMT -5
I'm not saying dissatisfaction is suffering. Rather, I'm asserting that the usual, non-dualist definition of suffering--indeed, your definition of suffering-- isn't my understanding of suffering (for that matter, neither is it the commonly understood definition of suffering). To understand your definition, I have to use another term, which, for lack of a better one, is dissatisfaction with what is. Not dissatisfaction in general. That said, and to get back to your earlier assertion, I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that dissatisfaction with what is ("suffering" to you) will continue after SR. The definition Google gave me for suffering was "pain, distress, injury, loss, or anything unpleasant". I find that definition a little too broad for our purposes here, don't you? I mean, anything unpleasant could be a loud noise or a fly buzzing me. If that's suffering, there's clearly no amount of Self Realizing that's going to do the trick, and really we don't care about those things, right? You care about getting rid of pain that really impacts your life, right? Isn't that what everybody imagines SR will do for them? Nobody expects that it's never going to rain again after SR, right? Are we pretty much in sync about that? Are we, like, on the same page and all? If I stub my toe, and say, "OUCH!", to me, that is basically suffering, according to the commonly held definition. Just stubbing my toe would inflict pain, but it's the reaction to the pain that is suffering. This is my understanding, and I'm sure if I inquired of every one I know, they would agree with this. That Google would denote it as "anything unpleasant" wouldn't conflict with this understanding. If you've ever suffered the smell of my roommate's cooking, I'm sure even you could agree. And, indeed, no amount of SR is going to eliminate suffering, under this commonly held definition, which is why I find the term confusing when it is used in the context of SR. Say, E, how about *your* definition of "suffering"? Might be helpful to forward discussion, and it would likely pique my interest to know, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 1, 2018 15:51:50 GMT -5
Right, well, this is why I cannot hold your definition of suffering. A masochist finds joy in suffering (or, at least, the commonly understood definition of suffering). Otherwise, there could be no such thing as masochism. Googles definition of suffering is "the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from one's own pain or humiliation." It doesn't imply that the masochist is suffering. I don't see him deriving joy from suffering, just from his own pain and humiliation. He obviously doesn't experience pain and humiliation as suffering, right? Yes, I agree with this. Actually, I think masochism is more a pleasure-from-pain thing than a joy-from-suffering thing, so I'm okay if masochism is taken off the table.
|
|