|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 1:58:38 GMT -5
Nisargadatta said "In reality there is no killing and no dying. The real does not die, the unreal never lived." And true as this may be, it is sometimes better to bite the tongue, understanding that not everyone understands what he understood. If I had shared that Nisargadatta tidbit with her, which I love, BTW, there would have been a rock imbedded in my forehead, along w ith a comment like "in reality there is no rock and there is no head."And there's also no rock throwing wife, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 2, 2018 3:03:45 GMT -5
So a bunny uses what's at it's disposal in order to distinguish one thing from another . If what's at it's disposal is a bunny brain, then it still needs to identify others in reflection of how it perceives itself . You say it's rather more a sense of itself rather than an identification of itself . That would infer that it just has a sense of what another bunny is or what a carrot is without identifying that . I can't see how you can separate a sense of yourself in reflection of another bunny without identifying that it's another bunny and not a carrot . A sense of self would be a recognition of self without the complex thought structure that references that self. It's that structure that most animals can't form, and which leads to suffering. We agree in the complexity differences, but there doesn't have to be a complex structure in toe for there to be self identification that reflects suffering .. You don't buy into behaviour as a sign of being self identified butt why would a non identified bunny defend it's space, it's food, it's babies if it wasn't self identified enough to bother . There must be something fear based that runs through the bunnies veins in order to defend . Anything fear based has an element of suffering attached to it . If a life form can experience emotions then it suffers . The emotions are reflected within their self identity, otherwise they would not react to them when they arise .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 6:32:04 GMT -5
well that's one of the central points. Simply, who/what lets it go? I mean, it makes 'rational sense' to 'let it go', and I can see why you consider it to be adult and mature, because functioning in the world we have created sort of requires it. The systems we have created, all require the ability to basically suppress desires, and instead create an illusion of 'deciding' and 'letting go'. If folks didn't do that, a lot would struggle to go to work probably. These folks have to 'commit to their decision' in order to pay the bills. Even folks who generally like their work may not like their work every day, but are still obliged by the rules of the work place to show up. 'Committing to a chocie' is an ability that humans take for granted, but it's an odd thing. It perpetuates the movement behind the illusionary separate self. I'm not really interested in discussing 'the illusion of self' or 'committing to decisions' right now. okay
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 6:40:05 GMT -5
I basically agree but I would say that even though animals don't have the existential fear, the suffering can be intense and pure in its form because they don't aggravate or add layers of existential fear to the suffering. It's just...suffering. It's not suffering AND mental desperation suffering. And in my words, I would say it is easy to be a human if there is no misidentification and false belief. If we are talking about the subjective kind of suffering then the time factor seems to be all-important. Intense physical pain that only lasts a micro second isn't going to cause suffering. Intense physical pain that last hours or longer certainly does - no matter what your realization status. So if suffering here means intense physical pain over a longer period of time, then I agree. The way I'm seeing it is that all sensation comes with a felt component, hence we aren't ever just sensing the apparent world, we are feeling the apparent world too. It's the 'feeling' that makes us sentient, more than the sensing does. Pain is a sensation that comes with felt suffering, but a micro-second of pain wouldn't register the felt suffering...but when the pain is enduring, then there is suffering, as you say. And then if we add layers of abstract story to that pain-suffering, then we add extra layers of suffering too. As has been suggested, being still, being present, expanding the perspective, changing focus...these are all intelligent ways to handle pain-suffering.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 6:41:40 GMT -5
yes, there are a ton of examples of activities that come with a level of suffering, but there is also value, purpose, satisfaction, pleasure and joy in the activity. I can relate to the skiing example. Weight lifting is likely another good example. I used to suffer to an extent when playing rugby, but there was still a level of enjoyment in it. I imagine that a lot of jobs come with suffering, but the pay offs are good (I don't just mean financial pay offs). You can also look at the story Laughter shared in the context of contrast, resistance and relief. The extreme contrast made the relief factor a lot more noticeable (or epic). Yes. I think the memory stands out and is remembered for the contrasting things that were going on.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 7:09:56 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? Yes, some people confuse SR with alignment.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 7:10:33 GMT -5
I think your mistaken that suffering has to exist alone. At its most intense, it can seem as if it does, and I can speak from personal experience on that. Most of the time though there is a level of suffering and other stuff going on. Hence, why that poet spoke of folks leading lives of quiet desperation, he's onto something. Many folks are suffering pretty much all the time, but it is a low grade suffering, and mixed with other qualities. Why do you believe that suffering has to exist alone? I think you are making it more complicated than it is. That poet is referring to existential suffering which is somehow always in the background and comes to the forefront when your mind isn't occupied with something else. Laughter's point was specifically not about existential suffering. So his example works for both the enlightened and unenlightened ones. If we mix these two kinds of suffering it can only get confusing. If we then also equate pain in general with suffering then it really gets messy. That's why I see Enigma taking such a hard line and not moving one inch. So you have a point there that the two kinds of suffering usually coexist and overlap but treating them equally would be a mistake even though on a personal feeling level they may feel exactly the same (at times). well there's a lot of distinctions being made in the thread at this point. At the moment it seems we have the potential of existential suffering, psychological suffering, and physical suffering. As I see it, all these distinctions have value and are useful to investigate, because if there is some truth to the idea that our experience/reality reflects our beliefs/psychology, then we had best look at what is going on internally rather than just pointing fingers at the apparent world. My point has been quite simple up until now, and that's just that it's fine and useful to create these distinctions, but the bottom line is that we don't have to work hard to know what is meant by 'suffering'. Similar to 'love'....if I say the word, we all have an immediate reference for it. We can endlessly discuss the different kinds of 'love'...romantic, conditional, unconditional, impersonal, co-dependent....but it won't change the fact that we all have an instinctive reference for what is meant by it. Same as 'suffering'. We see an animal squealing or crying out in pain, and instinctively, we know it is suffering. I see suffering as intrinsic to the nature of life, but that doesn't mean that I believe folks have to suffer, it just means we have to be intelligent and function in harmony with natural laws. And I am also fine to talk about the nature of existential or psychological suffering, for me BK is probably the best well known example of someone that works with 'psychological suffering'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 7:11:28 GMT -5
A sense of self would be a recognition of self without the complex thought structure that references that self. It's that structure that most animals can't form, and which leads to suffering. We agree in the complexity differences, but there doesn't have to be a complex structure in toe for there to be self identification that reflects suffering .. You don't buy into behaviour as a sign of being self identified butt why would a non identified bunny defend it's space, it's food, it's babies if it wasn't self identified enough to bother . There must be something fear based that runs through the bunnies veins in order to defend . Anything fear based has an element of suffering attached to it . If a life form can experience emotions then it suffers . The emotions are reflected within their self identity, otherwise they would not react to them when they arise . yeah
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 7:14:09 GMT -5
Tolle is always a source of insight, and I like his interpretation of the prodigal son .. but wow .. .. telling Andrew Cohen that the purpose of the world is so that peeps can suffer enough to wake up ?? .. Suffering is an undeniable part of many folks path stories. But. It's really, always, quite optional. I think he got that from new age books. Same with the pain body stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 7:22:54 GMT -5
Niz wouldn't say there is no suffering, only that the sufferer is an illusion. "As long as you identify yourself with your body and mind, you are bound to suffer; realize your independence and remain happy" Nisargadatta Didn't mean to imply that SR folks don't believe other folks don't suffer. Only that once you believe (know) you are not the mind or body, suffering ends. But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 8:00:43 GMT -5
If you haven't seen the documentary Grizzly Man, check it out. True story and narrated by director Werner Herzog (as usual, the perfect voice for the narration). Don't read about it first, just watch with an inquisitive mind. It does actually have some bearing on the convo at hand about suffering, peeps, animals, and, uummmm, some of the dangers about confusing their degrees of conscious behavior. Classic case of happy-face-stickering and someone trying to live a concept.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 8:45:39 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''. Yeah, as A-H say, don't worry about making the right decisions, just choose one and then make it right.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 8:55:05 GMT -5
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. 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'. He is talking about momentum. You can't just make a u-turn when you are going 100 mph. It's also the reason why temp bans don't work.
|
|
mits
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by mits on Mar 2, 2018 8:59:30 GMT -5
Suffering is being identified with my personal history, beliefs and idea, thoughts of who I think I am. I am so and so.....suffering is believing that the thoughts running in my head which are either negative or positive are real, that they must be true reflection of reality or of the world as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 9:23:09 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. ♫ "One way or another I'm gonna get ya..." ♫
|
|