|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 11:36:54 GMT -5
right, though even when watching someone suffering in a movie, in which we know fine well they are acting, it can still be powerful for people watching, because the actor is connecting to that aspect of themselves that knows suffering. So even though the acting is fake in one obvious way, it is real in the sense that they are still connecting to a particular aspect of their humanity. I guess that's why movies are popular, the context of watching the film allows humans to connect to aspects of themselves which they don't readily allow themselves to have. Yeah, it's all about focus. That's why I am saying you can focus yourself into suffering or into bliss. However, if you are consistently grounded in well-being, those emotions on the lower end of the emotional scale won't be readily available anymore. And people who mostly hang out in that lower range won't show up in your experience anymore, be it in real life or movies or just by hearsay. So just look around at what's manifesting in your life and you'll get a pretty accurate picture of your actual state of being in terms of consistent emotional range. Yes I think there's a large amount of truth in that, though if I have a reservation, it's that my experience is that emotions/feelings which are often seen as 'lower', can exist alongside those emotions/feeling which are seen as 'higher'. To give an example, one of our guinea pigs died a few weeks ago, and over the years, there's nothing that brings up stronger feelings in me, than witnessing the passing of a guinea pig. There can be intense love, joy, gratitude and yet also helplessness, frustration and intense sadness. I have no power over of these emotions/feelings, the only thing I can do is 'stay with them' until it all passes. In one way 'focus' is a luxury we have when we aren't passing through an emotional storm!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 11:37:51 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. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 11:39:28 GMT -5
There's likely going to be some self deception about what one's subjective experience really is. Is that what you mean? That too. But what I had in mind is the normalization effect that applies to feelings in general. Normalization just means suffering is subjective. It makes defining suffering objectively, impossible.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 11:41:54 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. That only makes obvious sense (to anyone who has an infection, or a kidney stone, or numerous other types of intense pain that will not cease without intervention), but E will continue to say no, because it doesn't fit his paradigm.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 11:47:24 GMT -5
Hey, why the indignant look? It is what it is. Well, it must have occurred to you that asking a weasel a "why" question is just creating the perfect opportunity for more weaseling, right? Hmmm, maybe we have lots of weasels here.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 11:56:38 GMT -5
Conceptual self identification seems to begin around age two. And that's what we call a person here. (That was for SDP) IMvhO, that's not a person, that's merely the "birth" of ego (the person already is, even from birth). And suffering is what gives birth to the ego, the suffering, of the person, that already is. The very purpose of ego, is to displace the suffering of the person. But a tragic error occurs, this is called the fall, or original sin (it didn't happen just once to "Adam and Eve" in the "Garden", it happens to everybody), identity is shifted from the person to the *shield*, from the real, to the mask. Most people don't remember this, because we-are-now the ego, not the person. The ego's memory belongs to ego (and the memory of essence belongs to essence). Every time you tell a one year old No!, it causes psychological damage (suffering). If you spank a one year old, untold psychological damage (suffering). Most serial killers were horribly punished as kids, as was Hitler, "garbage in, garbage out". Hurt people hurt people.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:00:15 GMT -5
Well I disagree. For example, giving birth can likely come with suffering and joy (I can't personally testify though lol). There are lots of examples, but that does seem quite an obvious one. Suffering isn't the bugaboo or bogey man that it is often painted to be. It CAN be (and I can testify that for myself), particularly when it is experienced as being choiceless and without any value. At its worst, suffering is pure hell. At its most mild, it isn't much more than empathizing with someone else's suffering. I mean, our friend gopal says he suffers when he watches Game Of Thrones lol, but he also enjoys it I assume. Yes, good point. The way Laughter told his skiing story, it was a story of pain and not suffering because there was a purpose and a way out. If you take that away, it would be a story of suffering. Without remembering the full story, that's the meaning of repairing the past.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:13:31 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. Animals think via representations in the mind (images). That's why the horse suffered in the presence of the cowboy with the black hat, but not the white hat (the Temple Grandin video). Suffering belongs-to-comes-from the mammalian brain (that is, it's emotional). Suffering doesn't in any way require a complex thought structure (that references a self) which arises from the neocortex, the limbic system/mammalian brain is quite sufficient. Animals that are (psychologically) hurt, suffer, and continue to suffer in the presence of the right stimulus. (If you watch the film Buck you come to understand that Buck had such sympathy and understanding of horses, because he and his brother were psychologically and physically abused by their father. They were child rodeo stars, and were beaten to perfection because they were a source of income. When they were about 12, thereabouts, they were removed from the custody of their father. They were essentially healed-by-love from their foster family. Buck translated all this into becoming a "Horse Whisperer").
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:18:46 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 . Bingo. (Anybody that has ever had a pet, knows animals (mammals) have a self).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 12:23:04 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.It's not about figuring it out. It's about losing something every day until you have nothing but everything.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:23:44 GMT -5
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. Not necessarily. I have never had a snake, lizard or iguana as a pet, but they don't have emotional centers, they are one-brained. So I would dare to guess, reptiles don't have a self, and would fit E's definition of not-suffering.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:29:31 GMT -5
Well, the way I see it SR is the definitive and permanent end of what's at the centerpoint of the psychological attachments that can always be found at the root of psychological suffering. Tolle used a wheel as a metaphor for what can happen, and I think he likely got it from some other Advaita source. It's like a wheel that breaks off it's axle and keeps rolling on momentum. Now, whatever that period after SR has to do with alignment is what it is, but the distinction between alignment and realization is between the relative and the non-relative. Realized and unrealized people alike are interested in the relative effects of realization, and there's unlikely to ever be a broad consensus on that precisely because there's no way of caging the wind. The only realization Tolle wrote about is one that's relevant to what I think of as awakening, as opposed to anything permanent. He only writes about sudden and dramatic shifts in terms of his own story, and as far I as know he never talks or writes directly about SR in the way some of us do on this forum. Whatever positive assertions someone makes about "life after SR" are generalities that can't possibly apply to everyone who realizes the existential truth, but as what we're talking about is a loss, it's definitely possible to say what is absent from that life. Persistent psychological pain just can't happen to someone who's really realized what it is that's feeling that pain. To me psychological suffering is just another word for the emotions at the bottom of the emotional scale. The entire emotional scale will still be available post SR as it was at birth. Is it possible for the baby to experience the bottom of the emotional scale? I'd say yes. Is it likely? No. Now replace baby with SR dude/dudette. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:36:12 GMT -5
I agree that SR would have to be the cure for existential suffering. Could you give an example of psychological suffering that would be applicable to a non-SR individual, and also to an SR individual? For example, 'it shouldn't rain at the weekend' might be a form of psychological suffering, right? What I call psychological suffering are the emotions at the end of the emotional scale, like hopelessness. Depending on what rain at the weekend implies to you personally, that's usually just slightly below the neutral point on that scale (contentment), probably irritation or disappointment, worry at most. Yes. Meher Baba was famous for saying on numerous occasions, "Don't worry, be happy". I would say it was not (really) a "prescription", but evidence.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 12:36:46 GMT -5
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. Not necessarily. I have never had a snake, lizard or iguana as a pet, but they don't have emotional centers, they are one-brained. So I would dare to guess, reptiles don't have a self, and would fit E's definition of not-suffering. I meant humans really, but to be clear I meant 'feeling' rather than 'emotion'. For example, there are many things that can be fitted with 'sensors', but have no sentience, no ability to 'feel'. I would be surprised if a snake doesn't 'feel' what it senses...even if it doesn't 'emote'.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:42:37 GMT -5
Yeah, it's all about focus. That's why I am saying you can focus yourself into suffering or into bliss. However, if you are consistently grounded in well-being, those emotions on the lower end of the emotional scale won't be readily available anymore. And people who mostly hang out in that lower range won't show up in your experience anymore, be it in real life or movies or just by hearsay. So just look around at what's manifesting in your life and you'll get a pretty accurate picture of your actual state of being in terms of consistent emotional range. Yes I think there's a large amount of truth in that, though if I have a reservation, it's that my experience is that emotions/feelings which are often seen as 'lower', can exist alongside those emotions/feeling which are seen as 'higher'. To give an example, one of our guinea pigs died a few weeks ago, and over the years, there's nothing that brings up stronger feelings in me, than witnessing the passing of a guinea pig. There can be intense love, joy, gratitude and yet also helplessness, frustration and intense sadness. I have no power over of these emotions/feelings, the only thing I can do is 'stay with them' until it all passes. In one way 'focus' is a luxury we have when we aren't passing through an emotional storm! Precisely. [And this shows the difference (meaning, distinctness, distinct functions) between the thinking mind, and the emotional mind. You can think-about anything that comes to mind or is brought to mind. But you can't feel what you want to feel, or turn off what you don't want to feel].
|
|