|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 16:16:54 GMT -5
synonyms: ego, I, oneself, persona, person, identity, character, personality, psyche, soul, spirit, mind, (inner) being "listen to your inner self" I'm suggesting the self is the apparent 'one'. Also referred to as the doer, the person, the imaginer, the actor. We could also say this 'one' is a thought, hence why we might suggest that 'no self' or 'not self' is the case. And hence why, in deep sleep, or a state of samadhi, the self, person, doer, imaginer, actor, is absent. I edited to provide more fine detail...poked around at it for a bit longer. Consciousness. Ok, I'll focus on what you've written here. In how I'd use the analogy, the "actor" would be primary; whereas, the person would be the role or appearance of which one becomes conscious of (i.e., secondary). As such, the actor imagines the whole drama of selves, which are only appearances. Problem is, "actor" kind of has a selvy feel to it. But, perhaps this might help. [/quote] oh okay, but then what are you suggesting is the nature of the 'one' that becomes conscious? I'm suggesting the idea here of there being a 'one' that 'becomes conscious' is misconceived. (Though again, I'm addressing this from within the context of there being no true self).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 16:23:02 GMT -5
Then how can we be sure those beings don't/can't suffer? I'm guessing your answer may be along the lines of what you said earlier here, about "reversing the process of suffering …", in which case I assume you're doing that, and applying it to a perception about the potential capacity of babies, and animals (i.e. their capacity for self-awareness). Putting aside the assumption there for the moment, presumably this is done through a process of observation, and application, so at the risk on going off on a tangent, how can we do that in this instance accurately, but not when it comes to determining the perceptual capacity of other beings, (i.e. in the others as perceivers scenario)? Maybe we can agree that, in general, suffering is formed in the mind rather than in the senses. Then the issue becomes, what sort of mental processes and structures are required to form suffering. I think the only controversial thing I'm saying here is that it requires a structure of self identification and that the infant cannot form that structure. We can notice that our own suffering is always about 'me'. Even compassion and empathy are solidly grounded in the 'me'. If it is not happening to the 'me', it cannot be my subjective suffering that we're talking about. As for what it takes to be able to form that 'me' structure, the concept of separation must be viscerally groked, and the conclusion derived that the world is happening to a 'me', involving the projection of 'my' situation into the past, generally concluding that this should not have happened, and projecting it into the future imagining that it may not have an ending. This is suffering, and it's asking a lot of an infant that has just begun to make an association between feeling hungry, and that hunger being abated by events that follow. That process runs very smoothly for the adult because we've had so much practice. An animal can feel pain without suffering. This is a critical insight that can turn a seeker's focus away from trying to fix his world and toward trying to fix how he sees his world. There is no physiological benefit to pain if there is no suffering component. Even animals learn (or perhaps know) that pain is to be avoided? Why? If you hit a dog it will come to fear you. Why? I think what you mean is that animals can experience pain without resisting it, and maybe you equate resistance with suffering but resistance and suffering isn't QUITE the same thing. I think the key misconception is the very first thing you said. While it has been shown that it is possible for some humans to experience an absence of pain, when others do experience pain.....a component of noticing the pain sensation is suffering. One can go deeply into pain, or detach from pain, or do any number of things such that the pain sensation is gone...but the moment the pain is noticed, there is suffering. So an animal may lay very still because to move is to notice the pain sensation. In this sense, it is the noticing that is the key to the suffering......the noticing, the pain, the suffering all go hand in hand. ( I mean 'noticing' in the normal sense, I'm not assassinating it by equating it with 'realizing'.). The affect of resisting the pain, is noticing the pain, and then suffering! And hence resistance is linked to suffering, but isn't the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 9, 2018 17:00:34 GMT -5
I'm suggesting the self is the apparent 'one'. Also referred to as the doer, the person, the imaginer, the actor. We could also say this 'one' is a thought, hence why we might suggest that 'no self' or 'not self' is the case. And hence why, in deep sleep, or a state of samadhi, the self, person, doer, imaginer, actor, is absent. I edited to provide more fine detail...poked around at it for a bit longer. Consciousness. Ok, I'll focus on what you've written here. In how I'd use the analogy, the "actor" would be primary; whereas, the person would be the role or appearance of which one becomes conscious of (i.e., secondary). As such, the actor imagines the whole drama of selves, which are only appearances. Problem is, "actor" kind of has a selvy feel to it. But, perhaps this might help. oh okay, but then what are you suggesting is the nature of the 'one' that becomes conscious? I'm suggesting the idea here of there being a 'one' that 'becomes conscious' is misconceived. (Though again, I'm addressing this from within the context of there being no true self). [/quote] OK, that's what I'm saying. As a falsely identified "person" becomes more conscious, realization might take place. There actually was never really any becoming of what one always was, but there was the realization that It always was, has been and will be.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 17:02:20 GMT -5
Ok, I'll focus on what you've written here. In how I'd use the analogy, the "actor" would be primary; whereas, the person would be the role or appearance of which one becomes conscious of (i.e., secondary). As such, the actor imagines the whole drama of selves, which are only appearances. Problem is, "actor" kind of has a selvy feel to it. But, perhaps this might help. oh okay, but then what are you suggesting is the nature of the 'one' that becomes conscious? I'm suggesting the idea here of there being a 'one' that 'becomes conscious' is misconceived. (Though again, I'm addressing this from within the context of there being no true self). OK, that's what I'm saying. As a falsely identified "person" becomes more conscious, realization might take place. There actually was never really any becoming of what one always was, but there was the realization that It always was, has been and will be. [/quote] yeah.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 17:13:52 GMT -5
I think the whole problem here is that there's no true self. ![:|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/plain.png) Yes, of course I know that's your opinion. True self is the (a) middle layer. For the record sdp, I don't believe your understanding and way of seeing things is wrong. But I also don't think the non-dual way of seeing things is wrong. I see both ways of seeing as valid and true even though they do somewhat oppose each other. Actually, I would say that they don't oppose each other, but there is a tension between them, and this tension is unresolvable but not a problem. Generally, folks seem to lean more towards one way more than the other, and I guess that boils down to what is most relevant for them. I'm a bit of an oddball in that I flicker between both and I guess that's what relevant for me. Of course those that lean more towards the non-dual would then say I haven't had the realization to end the flickering, but from my perspective, I'm just really okay with the tension.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 9, 2018 18:41:17 GMT -5
Howdy, Y'all ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Have been unemployed for a while, and with the time I found on my hands, though I'd pay a visit, to see if the regulars were still arguing it out. Sure enough, I quickly found this thread, replete with replies from the folks I remember from times past (but forgive me, as I may not remember *everything*). I see that we're still suffering the discussions about ... suffering. I would otherwise opine, but just wanted to interject a salutation. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 19:01:56 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken. I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though. I've mentioned before that I don't use the phrase as narrowly as most folks here, (which seems to be suffering as; merely extreme psychological angst arising only upon an overlay of a complex set of self-referential thoughts). For me both acute psychological angst, and acute physical pain are different forms of suffering, so I use it as a umbrella term. I tend not to divorce the psychology, and physicality too much, as obviously mind and body are interdependent. I'm also not entirely adverse to employing the phrase to talk about milder prevailing dissatisfaction, (which seems to be in keeping with E's definition). But accept that can be problematic, insofar as it could potentially be classed as over-statement. It's also seems fairly clear that it all depends on what level we deem the necessary component of 'self awareness' to ultimately be happening. For example, I tend to envisage that as happening on a much subtler, more primal level than conceptualisation, or sets of self-referencing thoughts. I'll say this much. If we find ourselves in the position where, say, an elephant shuffling along with it's foot hanging off coz it got caught in a wire snare isn't/can't be suffering, then I think something's gone awry. I say their entire countenance and demeanor suggests otherwise, and have it on good authority that anyone who has worked closely in such situations would corroborate that. I think L's comment, translated for common folk, means suffering is subjective, which of course I agree with. Reefs comment is true in that the belief in separation is the foundation of existential suffering. Mine was an attempt to broaden that definition to include suffering that doesn't appear to be existential in nature. (It goes without saying that mine is the right one) I'm sure the elephant example isn't exclusive to elephants, but I agree, as it seems elephants are self aware in a biological sense.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 9, 2018 19:15:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure either, but if the body is designed with a survival instinct, then 'suffering' could be the body-mind's way of saying, 'there is a problem that is disrupting my welfare'. Does a baby send off a 'there is a problem that is disrupting my welfare' signal? Well, when a baby is screaming for half an hour, I would say that is a 'there is a problem that is disrupting my welfare' signal. Pain is the 'welfare' signal. Pain and suffering are not the same. That's the whole point of this discussion. Yes, the term 'suffering' has a cultural meaning which isn't quite the same as 'dukkha', for example, as dukkha does pertain to pain as well as psychological 'craving'. 'Craving' covers the desire to have and the desire not to have. Perhaps a baby just cries because of discomfort but has no idea about how to alleviate it, so hasn't imagined 'something else' to crave. Later on we remember pleasurable feelings, so when pain arises we run from it in pursuit of 'something else' - which is the movement of the imagined self we call 'ego'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 19:28:13 GMT -5
Pain is the 'welfare' signal. Pain and suffering are not the same. That's the whole point of this discussion. Yes, the term 'suffering' has a cultural meaning which isn't quite the same as 'dukkha', for example, as dukkha does pertain to pain as well as psychological 'craving'. 'Craving' covers the desire to have and the desire not to have. Perhaps a baby just cries because of discomfort but has no idea about how to alleviate it, so hasn't imagined 'something else' to crave. Later on we remember pleasurable feelings, so when pain arises we run from it in pursuit of 'something else' - which is the movement of the imagined self we call 'ego'. I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? Random example from youtube. Not easy to watch, Pain, suffering or both?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2018 19:48:28 GMT -5
The question "what is suffering?" can't be disentangled from the question of "what suffers?", so there's no idea in answer to it, no conceptual structure that will ever reduce the process of suffering to relative, mechanistic terms. But there are some facts that we can apply to gain clarity. In terms of the current forum dialogs, machines can't suffer, and any and all suffering for a human being can cease during the course of their lifetime, as this is, essentially, a defining characteristic of self-realization. The babies that suffer don't have the bogus belief that leads to emotional pain. While we could point to what we mean by saying that emotional pain is an illusion, we still have to contend, practically speaking, with how emotional pain and physical pain can weave together in a sequence of events such that teasing out cause and effect becomes a meaningless exercise in futility. Also, out at the extremes, the distinction between physical pain and suffering loses it's efficacy as a pointer. I don't think I need to state the gruesome hypotheticals that would make this point. As you said, those experiments (that I'm completely unfamiliar with) were diseased. In terms of LOA and vibration, a person free of suffering will still have some sort of reaction in encountering energy patterns destructive of their person or the persons proximate to them or otherwise strongly related to them somehow. But these reactions happen one way when the pattern of false identification is manifest, and another way otherwise. To simplify this scenario in terms of personal resistance is a misconception that only one who isn't really free of that identification would ever consider as a conclusive basis for an explanation of the process, because the opposition to destructive patterns of energy is entirely situational. I stumbled upon this when I was reading about Wilhelm Reich many years ago (cloud busting, hehe). He actually did some work on personality and social conditioning and how it led to suffering when the personality became inflexible (he called it character amour). That was in the 1920's or 1930's, a time that he experienced as very brutish and lacking any sense or sensibility in terms of what a human being actually is. He said that infants were considered as having no personality or sense of self or even a capacity to feel. Seth has been speaking about biological optimism and how there are certain minimum requirements in terms of quality of experience for every individual consciousness in order to stay focused in the physical. When that basic requirement can't be fulfilled, the individual consciousness will withdraw from the physical. That seems to work perfectly and effortlessly in the animal kingdom but it's obviously a different story with humans. There's an enormous willingness to put up with suffering. Animals don't have that willingness, and infants don't seem to have that willingness either. Which doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity to suffer. Pets obviously do at times. Well, being fully free of any resistance in this world is only an ideal, even A-H admit that. They actually said once that it would be an impossibility to live in this world in this day and age and be totally free of resistance. And I agree with that. So those like BK who think they are totally allowing are mostly kidding themselves (as their manifestations show). As long as there is contrast, there is wanted and unwanted and therefore the potential for resistance. And as long as you know the way back to the watering hole and replenish often, then it isn't a problem anyway. It's only a problem if you want to live an idea/ideal. Yes, defining the end of suffering as the end of resistance sets up an unrealistic expectation in terms of the nature of experience, especially as it relates to SR. Experience is very different after SR, but the changes take place over time, and it's quite possible -- and I'd dare say even more likely -- for there to be very little change in the situational context of the individual associated with the realization. Another past topic that's applicable to this point is what maxy and ourboros have written about before in terms of the Buddhist idea of dukkha .. how there is one facet of dukkha that is (to my eye, at least, and in my words), essentially, just entropy. As Morrison opined in lyric "♪ noone here .. gets .. out alive ♫". ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2018 19:56:42 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken. I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though. I've mentioned before that I don't use the phrase as narrowly as most folks here, (which seems to be suffering as; merely extreme psychological angst arising only upon an overlay of a complex set of self-referential thoughts). For me both acute psychological angst, and acute physical pain are different forms of suffering, so I use it as a umbrella term. I tend not to divorce the psychology, and physicality too much, as obviously mind and body are interdependent. I'm also not entirely adverse to employing the phrase to talk about milder prevailing dissatisfaction, (which seems to be in keeping with E's definition). But accept that can be problematic, insofar as it could potentially be classed as over-statement. It's also seems fairly clear that it all depends on what level we deem the necessary component of 'self awareness' to ultimately be happening. For example, I tend to envisage that as happening on a much subtler, more primal level than conceptualisation, or sets of self-referencing thoughts. I'll say this much. If we find ourselves in the position where, say, an elephant shuffling along with it's foot hanging off coz it got caught in a wire snare isn't/can't be suffering, then I think something's gone awry. I say their entire countenance and demeanor suggests otherwise, and have it on good authority that anyone who has worked closely in such situations would corroborate that. What happened to that elephant (plural?) is a particular, and apparently real-life example of one of those gruesome extreme hypothetical's I was referring to. Yes, my position is that suffering can't be defined conceptually, but what the end of suffering means can be pointed to. The struggle that ends is one that can be described in terms of angst, which in degrees can express in terms of paralysis, despair, and psychological agony. In the extreme, there is no outward difference between someone suffering and someone free of suffering if the pain gets bad enough. There still is a difference, but it's one that trying to explain will always eventually offer as much opportunity for confusion as for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 9, 2018 19:57:59 GMT -5
Yes, the term 'suffering' has a cultural meaning which isn't quite the same as 'dukkha', for example, as dukkha does pertain to pain as well as psychological 'craving'. 'Craving' covers the desire to have and the desire not to have. Perhaps a baby just cries because of discomfort but has no idea about how to alleviate it, so hasn't imagined 'something else' to crave. Later on we remember pleasurable feelings, so when pain arises we run from it in pursuit of 'something else' - which is the movement of the imagined self we call 'ego'. I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? It is obvious that a baby screaming from colic is likely experiencing pain. I think most (present company excluded) would say that the experience of such pain incessantly for long periods of time would mean that one was suffering. The topic of suffering (for which, I believe, there was a dedicated thread some time ago) has been and will probably forever be hotly debated. The reason why this is, I think, is because of the very definition of "suffering", which tends to be subjective. I once witnessed a dog yelping incessantly in pain, and it hurt me so much to hear it, I couldn't help but shed tears, myself. Long ago, I mentioned this to E, and he convinced me that the dog (not unlike the baby in the video) might have indeed been in pain, but was not suffering. By E's definition (which comes closer to the Buddhist definition), that dog, like the baby, Is not suffering. My own understanding is that suffering is what we bring on ourselves through belief that we are persons (with dignity and rights, etc.). That said, I don't think the baby is suffering.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 20:06:26 GMT -5
I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? It is obvious that a baby screaming from colic is likely experiencing pain. I think most (present company excluded) would say that the experience of such pain incessantly for long periods of time would mean that one was suffering. The topic of suffering (for which, I believe, there was a dedicated thread some time ago) has been and will probably forever be hotly debated. The reason why this is, I think, is because of the very definition of "suffering", which tends to be subjective. I once witnessed a dog yelping incessantly in pain, and it hurt me so much to hear it, I couldn't help but shed tears, myself. Long ago, I mentioned this to E, and he convinced me that the dog (not unlike the baby in the video) might have indeed been in pain, but was not suffering. By E's definition (which comes closer to the Buddhist definition), that dog, like the baby, Is not suffering. My own understanding is that suffering is what we bring on ourselves through belief that we are persons (with dignity and rights, etc.). That said, I don't think the baby is suffering. well definition is everything here, and we are free to define 'suffering' however we like, but there is a level at which we can't help BUT recognize when another sentient being is suffering. This is an intuitive, innate, pre-conceptual, empathic, paternal and maternal recognition. So when we re-define it, it is really for intellectual purposes, and this may well have value at times. But it is an artificial change of definition, it really only has relevance in a very small context, and even then we can't escape what we know to be true. I'm sure the dog you saw was suffering, and I'm sure the baby in the video is suffering. And then on the flip side, the problem with re-defining 'suffering' for intellectual/spiritual purposes, is that causing pain to others becomes morally justifiable. It's just another sensation after all. If you hurt someone, or an animal, physically.... and they suffer, well that's their mental issues, nothing to do with what you did. If you see a starving baby...it's fine...they're not suffering.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2018 20:10:15 GMT -5
An imagined self is a self that's being imagined. It's a Tenkatology, and Tenkatologys can't be argued. I'm suggesting the idea of an 'imagined self' is a bit misconceived because the imaginer and the self are the same. The conception is still valid, as the imaginer imagines that they are other than the source of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 20:11:41 GMT -5
I'm suggesting the idea of an 'imagined self' is a bit misconceived because the imaginer and the self are the same. The conception is still valid, as the imaginer imagines that they are other than the source of the imagination. what imaginer though?
|
|