|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2018 13:32:26 GMT -5
"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'... But do they agree on where it begins and ends?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2018 13:38:47 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. Ok, well, despair always involves suffering for sure, but to see why I think defining suffering that way doesn't work I'd say that hopelessness might not. The distinction being one where someone concludes that something they were purposing toward is just so unlikely that they might as well give up the purpose. Negative emotions are the smoke, but there might not be any fire, and we all know where that debate leads. To me the whole notion of a six-second enlightened angry-floorburger rule just doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 13:45:39 GMT -5
Currently, we're arguing whether all resistance is suffering, though really you lost that argument a long time ago and you haven't let go of the desire to be right, so you suffer as you hoist the cup of tea to your lips. Okay, then I will clarify. Ultimately, all resistance is suffering, yes, because all resistance is 'against the flow'. Hence it can be said that life has two intrinsic aspects...harmony (ease) and resistance (suffering). With that said, I actually consider that to be a 'spiritual' definition of suffering, which...like your definition of suffering...is really only of value in spiritual conversations. It's not an intuitive and instinctive definition of suffering (and neither is yours). A good way to look at it is resistance causes friction, friction causes heat, heat causes pain, pain causes suffering. So I agree.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2018 13:46:50 GMT -5
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. Hey, great idea for if I ever get kicked off this place! Aces! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 13:47:11 GMT -5
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***Laboriuosly takes another drink of coffee*** Yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2018 13:52:13 GMT -5
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. Do you mean that as in, the story is a favorable adjustment to what really happened? If so .. dude, really? Like. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 16:29:03 GMT -5
Without remembering the full story, that's the meaning of repairing the past. Do you mean that as in, the story is a favorable adjustment to what really happened? If so .. dude, really? Like. Wow. No, I vaguely remember the story. Repair the past doesn't mean favorable adjustment. It means the meaning of the past is changed. (If you would link me, I'd like to read it again).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2018 16:47:03 GMT -5
Do you mean that as in, the story is a favorable adjustment to what really happened? If so .. dude, really? Like. Wow. No, I vaguely remember the story. Repair the past doesn't mean favorable adjustment. It means the meaning of the past is changed. (If you would link me, I'd like to read it again). It's actually quite fascinating how you'd draw that conclusion based on a vague recollection.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 21:31:41 GMT -5
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'. Yeah, it basically comes down to 3 kinds of suffering: 1) existential 2) physical and 3) psychological. #2 and #3 are similar in that they can be dealt with by applying deliberate focusing. That doesn't work for #1 though. #1 requires a realization. Which means #1 has a definite end. Once that's done it's done. #2 and #3 are have to be dealt with on a moment to moment basis. Animals and humans share the experience of #2. But animals (and babies and sages) don't experience #1. Babies have the capacity to focus deliberately and therefore they also have the capacity to experience #3 even though its highly unlikely because they are still very much grounded in a feeling of general well-being. Now, I'd argue the same theoretically applies to some animals, especially pets. But as we've worked out here, it depends on the level of sophistication the animal is showing in terms of self-perception and range of deliberate focus. A-H often say that the main difference between animals and humans is that humans have way more latitude in terms of focus and choice making. So by default, the human can get way more out of alignment than the animal. But they also say that animals that choose to live with humans very often start behaving like humans and also show the same symptoms. So maybe we should limit #3 to pets only. I don't see it as likely that the animals in the wild would experience #3. But then again, we've only been talking about bunnies. What about primates? Anybody here in the know about primates?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 21:38:32 GMT -5
But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'... Yes. There is nothing that we are not including suffering? There is no subject/object dichotomy, but having said that I create a subject/object dichotomy. Truthfully, Reefs, I'm just here cause I like to hear myself sound "wise." Hope that doesn't offend you or anyone else. It's only about me. No worries. Taking part in these conversations is an excellent way of getting to know your own beliefs and sorting them out.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 21:59:15 GMT -5
I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R For me, no. The energy to argue the problems of solipsism has largely burned out, and the momentum to even read what's happening over there has fallen away. Nevertheless, I am triggered on the subject still, so if it comes up here, I will likely respond. As yet, I believe I have only commented as a response, I haven't raised the subject. Though if you want to move anything that has been said over to a new thread, I have no problem with that. I'm not finger pointing. Nothing gone wrong here. Threads naturally evolve and peeps like to talk about what's mostly on their minds. I just think it's a lot better for the forum community as a whole to have mostly one topic in one thread instead of one topic showing up in all threads or only one thread containing all topics. This way the forum won't be dominated by only 2 or 3 peeps and 1 topic. My guess is it's not even a handful of peeps who are interested in this solipsism stuff. Nevertheless, if it comes up again and again, it's worth addressing directly and getting to the bottom of it. And that works best in a separate thread only devoted to that one topic.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 22:11:24 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! You mean the lower vibrations have a stronger momentum so you are drawn back there repeatedly? Well, that's just how moving up the emotional scale works. The only tool you have is your attention, your ability to focus. Everything is subject to that. You are not powerless. But it takes some practice and deliberate intent. If the momentum is too strong then you often have no choice but to go with it. But just going with whatever comes your way is called creating by default, it means you state of being is controlled by circumstances instead the other way around and that gives you a feeling of not being in control (powerlessness) and that's not fun and not satisfying. What is fun and satisfying is being creative and deliberate. Because that way you are drawing more energy flow which gives you this intoxicating feeling of being fully alive.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 22:23:53 GMT -5
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. Not "anything unpleasant".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 23:10:06 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 . We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 23:17:10 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. The feeling component of sensation is already part of mind's 'abstract story' telling. An odor can smell good or bad, or a touch can feel pleasant or painful depending on our experience with similar odors and touches.
|
|