|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 6:40:42 GMT -5
Something that keeps coming up for me in these discussions is that negative feelings are only negative because we suffer from them and therefore label them negative, (there's nothing inherently negative about a feeling) but low level fear can be excitement and anger can be fun drama and longing can be precious. Yes, negative feelings indicate less thriving, less aliveness, less options. Anger can be fun drama if you are coming from a place of despair of grief (see bad poetry), but it isn't fun if you are coming from contentment.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 6:44:35 GMT -5
What I'm suggesting is that suffering has a deep root in the false self, and the end of the false self is the practical end of suffering. Not the end of pain or fear or sorrow or resistance or unpleasantness, but the end of suffering. They are not the same. That's basically my position as well.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 6:59:47 GMT -5
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. Something that keeps coming up for me in these discussions is that negative feelings are only negative because we suffer from them and therefore label them negative, ( there's nothing inherently negative about a feeling) but low level fear can be excitement and anger can be fun drama and longing can be precious. And Tolle's story, for example, is one of a sudden shift in perspective in the midst of that suffering. I've never heard him analyze it in those terms, but he could just as easily have asked "why don't I want this?" as "am I one, or two?". The most common objections to this idea have to do with perceiving it as dismissing the underlying pain, be it physical or emotional.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 7:03:15 GMT -5
Do you mean that as in, the story is a favorable adjustment to what really happened? If so .. dude, really? Like. Wow. You aren't really fooling anybody, ya know. We all know how much you hate skiing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 7:04:18 GMT -5
It's actually quite fascinating how you'd draw that conclusion based on a vague recollection. Even more fascinating is that kitty wasn't hungry for hours after chowing down on those dots. That's 'cause the laser was made in Japan instead of China.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 4, 2018 7:39:08 GMT -5
Yeah I agree. And 'a sense of self' is actually my definition of ego, although it just so happens it can get blown out of all proportion in humans, and that's the sense it's usually talked about in. Which means the ego is there from birth, not just from age two. In its purest form I think some form a sense of self transcends birth even, but on reflection concede it would seem odd to talk about that in terms of ego. The Buddha taught conception was the point of the coming together of the aggregation we think of as the mind-body expression, but that even prior to that are propelling (kammic) forces which condition that occurrence, of which identity view is a major cause. So I'm talking about a cycle of rebirth where ultimately identity view is effectively a cause of birth, which I know is hard to get your head around. Anyway, the process of birth itself is stressful (dukkha), and we see that the first thing the baby does upon arrival is wail at the top of its lungs, as it separates from the warmth, security, and nourishment of the mother, and as if on some level it knows it's pretty much downhill all the way from there, hehe. And where birth is the cause, death is the inevitable effect, and in the meantime life is subject to struggle, ageing, dis-ease and loss of loved ones, and this happens in perpituity until true liberation. But I digress. The process at aged two seems to be more about where identification with the mind-body expression comes to fruition, which would be a requisite condition for existential angst, I suppose. Although interestingly, out of that additional fall from grace I see coming the potential for sapience, and by extension liberation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 8:24:45 GMT -5
I contend that most of the lower animals (and infants) have no such story telling ability, and do not experience the suffering associated with it. In every animal, physical pain and fear serve to protect the creature, but when an animal without a story telling ability responds in that mode, it shouldn't be assumed that all the human stories that usually accompany that behavior are also present. Running is not suffering, fear is not suffering, crying out is not suffering, resistance is not suffering. The point of suffering is hidden from the adult because we don't know something unnatural has taken place in our minds. stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-Withholding-Affection/13213
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 8:40:14 GMT -5
Which means the ego is there from birth, not just from age two. In its purest form I think some form a sense of self transcends birth even, but on reflection concede it would seem odd to talk about that in terms of ego. The Buddha taught conception was the point of the coming together of the aggregation we think of as the mind-body expression, but that even prior to that are propelling (kammic) forces which condition that occurrence, of which identity view is a major cause. So I'm talking about a cycle of rebirth where ultimately identity view is effectively a cause of birth, which I know is hard to get your head around. Anyway, the process of birth itself is stressful (dukkha), and we see that the first thing the baby does upon arrival is wail at the top of its lungs, as it separates from the warmth, security, and nourishment of the mother, and as if on some level it knows it's pretty much downhill all the way from there, hehe. And where birth is the cause, death is the inevitable effect, and in the meantime life is subject to struggle, ageing, dis-ease and loss of loved ones, and this happens in perpituity until true liberation. But I digress. The process at aged two seems to be more about where identification with the mind-body expression comes to fruition, which would be a requisite condition for existential angst, I suppose. Although interestingly, out of that additional fall from grace I see coming the potential for sapience, and by extension liberation. That's basically the way I see it too. The ego (perspective) is there from birth but it has not yet become a person. That happens at around age two and probably has something to do with socialization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 8:59:48 GMT -5
Then I don't understand your argument (against animal's suffering). The sense of self is what suffers. Finally, we get to a point where we can actually discuss. All creatures are born with a sense of self, a sense of existing, the sense of 'I am'. This makes it possible for creatures to function in the world. Even the mosquito has a sense of existing, but it is very simple. It's not a concept or a thought, and so does not lend itself to self referential conclusions and stories. You also have a sense of self, and around it you've developed all manner of stories about what that sense refers to; what it is that exists. A person with a body and a mind and likes and dislikes and hopes and fears and needs. A complex self image, the tendency to analyze the past and predict future scenarios, etc. This is the source of all psychological suffering, and most of your physical suffering. What I call the point of suffering is a critical point at which non-problematic fear and resistance turn to suffering. That point is different for everyone, but it's critical in understanding how and why suffering comes to be, and offers a clue about how to end it. I contend that most of the lower animals (and infants) have no such story telling ability, and do not experience the suffering associated with it. In every animal, physical pain and fear serve to protect the creature, but when an animal without a story telling ability responds in that mode, it shouldn't be assumed that all the human stories that usually accompany that behavior are also present. Running is not suffering, fear is not suffering, crying out is not suffering, resistance is not suffering. The point of suffering is hidden from the adult because we don't know something unnatural has taken place in our minds. I work with a rescue dog who seven years on still cowers and flinches on first touch. The notion that animals or infants aren't traumatized because they can't tell stories is plain silly. I have a friend who was raped as an infant. Her life has been pure hell even though she remembers nothing. It's a tidy world you live in. Doesn't resemble the one I live in, but true it might be just perspective, a little bit of that Catholic upbringing still sticks with me. "There but for the grace of God go I."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 10:00:46 GMT -5
Not that I endorse this view. Trying to lose mine. It was an interesting take on the topic of suffering. Best part of the video is her describing a gentleman storming out of her satsang screaming "there is no suffering." It sounds so familiar. Well that was a guy who wasn't taking responsibility for obviously causing his own suffering. Amoda talks about self-honesty at one point. Do you honestly think that anyone here has taken the position that suffering is an illusion? She makes it clear that she's speaking about "energy", which is what Reefs is alluding to with the idea of "alignment". But what is realized, in self-realization, is only tangentially related to what she means by "energy". Many of us have spilled lots of ink here (in past threads), on this false expectation that "awakening" or "realization" result in an experience of permabliss. See, that's the thing: pain continues .. and noone here on this forum has recently re-advocated any version of the perpetugasm. But something does cease with the realization. And it's quite significant. Not pain, but something else, and that's what we've been calling suffering.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 10:25:54 GMT -5
The sage and seeker will never hear each other say that because they're camped on different mountains, and separated by another. Dude. That's like, soooooooo 1993. I'm sure you've heard it said "First there a mountain, then there's no mountain, then there's a mountain without cell phone coverage." It just is what it is....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 10:31:38 GMT -5
Dude. That's like, soooooooo 1993. I'm sure you've heard it said "First there a mountain, then there's no mountain, then there's a mountain without cell phone coverage." It just is what it is.... Yeah. I see what you did there.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 10:41:35 GMT -5
yeah, in terms of the distinctions, that all works for me. Did you ever see the monkeys sit the 'fairness' test? It goes something like this. 2 monkeys sit the same test, and when they both get the answers right, they get rewarded, but one gets their favourite food and the other gets some kind of crappy bit of food. After this happens a couple of times, the latter monkey is having a proper tantrum at what he sees as 'unfair' reward. So yeah, I would say they can psychologically suffer. Haha, cool! And here's some video evidence for Engima: Monkeys have the slapstick comedy gene.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 10:45:48 GMT -5
I'm just looking at the slightly conflicting movements to go over to the new thread and continue On one hand, I feel a heavinenss and sense of uninspiredness, on the other hand, the movement to go to war on the subject is slightly there At the moment (and to quote Willy Wonka)...''there's no earthly way of knowing, which direction we are going!'' Suppose there's a war and no one shows up. Then what? BTW how did that landlord situation you mentioned a few days ago turn out? Exactly as you predicted? Then there isn't a war for anybody to show up to. It's a paradox!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 10:49:43 GMT -5
An amoeba is classified as 'living' isn't it (as opposed to non-living)? To say that it has a 'sense of self' doesn't really sound right, but I might say that in a minuscule microcosmic way, the seed of the sense of self is there. According to Seth, even electrons have a sense of self. Even I wouldn't try to defend that one!
|
|