|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 10:56:37 GMT -5
You're not saying that an amoeba is experiencing are you? Call in the solipsists hehe. Actually, I'm not sure what you are asking me here, or is it more of a sort of rhetorical agreement with what I said...? From the perspective that there is only what you are .. all life forms experience . I was pointing towards the reason for experiencing .. If there was no sense of the experience had in reflection of what you are, then there would be no point manifesting as this or that .I think some peeps see a sense of self or what you are as something different from a self identity . There are different levels at play for sure regarding identifying self butt when a bunny defends it's space it does so because the sense of itself is identified otherwise it wouldn't behave as it does . An amoeba that feeds, move, reproduces I would say has it's own self identifying experience . The obvious alternative is that it manifests for the experience of those who can experience.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 10:59:19 GMT -5
Why? Because self identity implies certain behavior which implies self identity which implies certain behavior? It stands to reason that a life form behaves in a certain way because it has a sense of itself that is identified . If it didn't identify itself it wouldn't identify something else . You don't buy into behaviour as an indicator butt you don't explain why a bunny would behave in a defensive manner even though it doesn't recognise it's own reflection in the mirror .
How does it recognise another bunny bouncing around in the fields when it supposedly doesn't even identify with itself?It has a sense of self.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 11:01:17 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. If you choose to define ego that way, but it's a bit of an assassination.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 11:11:22 GMT -5
According to Seth, even electrons have a sense of self. Seeing as how absolute video proof of how we're all made of electrons is a slam dunk that I don't even have to post it seems that we have an explanation for how there can be apparently many minds in one person. It definitely explains that 'poking in the ribs' that I feel now and then.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 11:36:17 GMT -5
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." Enigma is a bit of a behaviorist (in the B.F.Skinner sense) on these matters.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 11:36:39 GMT -5
You aren't really fooling anybody, ya know. We all know how much you hate skiing. The real question is why you force yourself to suffer all winter, but it prolly relates to some massochistic tendencies, and that probly comes from not being loved enough as a child.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 11:38:50 GMT -5
According to Seth, even electrons have a sense of self. Even I wouldn't try to defend that one! I guess that's the engineer speaking again.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 11:45:12 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. I'm sure you have video evidence to support what you say, but is it possible the infant was nonplussed by the experience of being forced through a hole the size of a grapefruit?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 11:48:39 GMT -5
Which means the ego is there from birth, not just from age two. If you choose to define ego that way, but it's a bit of an assassination. Yeah, I can see that. It certainly doesn't allow for ego bashing. I prefer to see ego more as a perspective and not so much as an evil entity. The ego perspective is not an accident or something gone wrong that has to be fixed or destroyed. The ego perspective is very much the leading edge perspective. It allows for a very specific kind of experience. That's all. It comes with certain liabilities though.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 4, 2018 12:08:22 GMT -5
Which means the ego is there from birth, not just from age two. If you choose to define ego that way, but it's a bit of an assassination. Perhaps we could say that there's a pre-cognitive or non-reflective sense of self prior to age two, and somewhere around age two it becomes reflectively established and obvious to adults. Infants seem to be genetically attracted to human faces, and will stare into people's eyes with great interest shortly after birth, but there comes a point at which infants realize that the face they're looking at in a mirror is their own. I forget at what age this occurs (Piaget and others have written about it), but ego, as reflective self-identification, seems to crystallize somewhere between the age of one and two, and this process of more-and-more intensely-identifying as a self continues throughout life unless SR occurs. Zen people distinguish this psychological process as one involving "nen" actions. The first nen is an outward movement of consciousness; the second nen is an inward-looking or reflecting action of consciousness (which can relate to a first nen action), and the third nen, which is another reflecting action of consciousness, gives rise to self-identification. As Sekida writes, "(the third nen) ...is responsible for a thought like, "I know I was aware of my knowing that I noticed I had been thinking, 'The weather is fine today." In Zen terms an infant is primarily focused upon first nen sensory input, and it is only later that the second and third nen reflecting actions begin to occur. Someone pursuing ATA-T is solely focused upon first nen phenomena--sights, sounds, etc. Sekida writes, "Man thinks and acts without noticing. When he thinks, 'It is fine today,' he is aware of the weather, but not his own thought. It is the reflecting action of consciousness that comes immediately after the thought that makes him aware of his own thinking. The act of thinking of the weather is an outward-looking one and is absorbed in the object of its thought. On the other hand, the reflecting action of consciousness looks inward and notes the preceding action that has just gone by--still leaving its trace behind as the direct past." He writes a lot more about this, but my point is that an infant does not initially have this kind of reflecting action that allows it to know itself as an entity separate from all else.
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Mar 4, 2018 12:42:14 GMT -5
Welp, I feel like there is a blueprint to human suffering, but that its creation is unconscious and so once the problem is within the conscious field the mind identified to have the problem is the problem itself. And so we inevitably see some interesting ideas, beliefs, and counter beliefs structured and compromised before spiritual progress takes place. An interesting thing that I haven't seen mentioned is how unconscious internalized pain can attract external disaster, experiences that seem to be the cause of pain but are completely correlated to already existing pain that is being managed unconsciously. And so, the line between the emotional hurt of losing a loved one and the suffering one experiences surrounding the inability to process the loss appears to cross realms. In this way, I would attribute suffering in the spiritual sense to a mind identified state of being out of touch with intelligence. I would also say this suffering arises from unconscious life writing, and directly stems from how human beings refuse to process emotions and choose to seek compensation. And it's at that point where it becomes difficult to talk about. A baby demonstrates discomfort to communicate distress. I'm hungry. I want my Mommy. I pooped in my pants. Healthy mind function. Simultaneously, to whatever extent primary caregivers are inflicted by mind identification, or harboring unresolved injuries, a door to a dark spiritual dimension is opened. This is when the suffering complex formulates. The world isn't safe. Nobody can be trusted. These types of beliefs in the unconscious merit seeking and escape through compensation. To the extent the child screams out for the cell phone, to what extent does the parent believe he owns the child? The phone is mine. Scream.
No it's not. But you are mine. Stop whining and play with your stupid plastic car I bought you that would only interest a chimp for half a day at best.
I want the phone. It's so cool. I love swiping. I'm already addicted. Scream.
I made you. Repress your emotions so the spirits cloaking me can bring you into hell.
Ok let's burn. Wahh!
Suffering and misalignment through compartmentalization go hand in hand. The core issue seems to be conditioning operating in a way to avoid the human implications of conditions. This can only take place unconsciously, through a block in emotion or feeling, coupled to a projection loop that manifests through seeking a compensation to the identity associated with the blocked emotion or feeling. Simultaneous. A cell phone can be enjoyed by a toddler. It can also be vested with a sense of self, and it is that investment that is suffering. A need to maintain an identity in always changing conditions isn't possible. Fear of change isn't just a fear of death, it's the fear of life, and the primary mechanism through which heart centered desires are bypassed for or laced with unconscious self seeking. I don't necessarily disagree with your notion that some "suffering" is needlessly caused by the inability to deal with past issues, past pain. But it is interesting to note that you make a distinction between "emotional hurt" and "suffering." The basis of this distinction is that those "suffering" haven't dealt with past "emotional hurt" effectively (with intelligence) whereas those who merely experience "emotional hurt" know to deal with this effectively, hence they don't suffer?
Well, even the idea of dealing with emotional hurt is layered with the idea that it needs to be dealt with in the first place, as opposed to simply experienced and thus not placed in the unconscious and associated with a deficient sense of self. Once that deficient sense of self is created, it can then be compensated for by projecting the emotion associated with it into a present or future moment scenario and then seeking it out in a blind sequence of personal disassociation, consciousness disassociating from the experience taking place within its own creation. Of course the emotion can be projected and attacked (ie racism), percolate and re-animated through mental movies of the past that also serve to compensate, but the point being that the primary energy function of the mind is always the same. Avoid and disassociate through compensation. That is the identification complex. We would be fooling ourselves if we said that most of humanity does not associate unconsious emotional compensation with happiness, or that the realization of the futility of this strategy entails a crisis in the most personal sense. And this is where we come back to the question-are those suffering those who haven't dealt with their past emotions? In a way yes, but in another way, those who are suffering create these emotions unconsciously by constructing a compensatory self. The destruction of that self is inevitably painful, and had the compensatory self not been created in lieu of a conscious emotional connection, the ability to become conscious wouldn't have been created either. Is there an actual compensatory self that suffers or is destroyed? Actually, no. Is there more authentic expression in the wake of becoming conscious? Welp, yes. Does that mean there is an authentic self underneath the layers of false hood? That's not it either. All very interesting though.
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Mar 4, 2018 12:52:41 GMT -5
Welp, I feel like there is a blueprint to human suffering, but that its creation is unconscious and so once the problem is within the conscious field the mind identified to have the problem is the problem itself. And so we inevitably see some interesting ideas, beliefs, and counter beliefs structured and compromised before spiritual progress takes place. An interesting thing that I haven't seen mentioned is how unconscious internalized pain can attract external disaster, experiences that seem to be the cause of pain but are completely correlated to already existing pain that is being managed unconsciously. And so, the line between the emotional hurt of losing a loved one and the suffering one experiences surrounding the inability to process the loss appears to cross realms. In this way, I would attribute suffering in the spiritual sense to a mind identified state of being out of touch with intelligence. I would also say this suffering arises from unconscious life writing, and directly stems from how human beings refuse to process emotions and choose to seek compensation. And it's at that point where it becomes difficult to talk about. A baby demonstrates discomfort to communicate distress. I'm hungry. I want my Mommy. I pooped in my pants. Healthy mind function. Simultaneously, to whatever extent primary caregivers are inflicted by mind identification, or harboring unresolved injuries, a door to a dark spiritual dimension is opened. This is when the suffering complex formulates. The world isn't safe. Nobody can be trusted. These types of beliefs in the unconscious merit seeking and escape through compensation. To the extent the child screams out for the cell phone, to what extent does the parent believe he owns the child? The phone is mine. Scream.
No it's not. But you are mine. Stop whining and play with your stupid plastic car I bought you that would only interest a chimp for half a day at best.
I want the phone. It's so cool. I love swiping. I'm already addicted. Scream.
I made you. Repress your emotions so the spirits cloaking me can bring you into hell.
Ok let's burn. Wahh!
Suffering and misalignment through compartmentalization go hand in hand. The core issue seems to be conditioning operating in a way to avoid the human implications of conditions. This can only take place unconsciously, through a block in emotion or feeling, coupled to a projection loop that manifests through seeking a compensation to the identity associated with the blocked emotion or feeling. Simultaneous. A cell phone can be enjoyed by a toddler. It can also be vested with a sense of self, and it is that investment that is suffering. A need to maintain an identity in always changing conditions isn't possible. Fear of change isn't just a fear of death, it's the fear of life, and the primary mechanism through which heart centered desires are bypassed for or laced with unconscious self seeking. Fascinating take 'j. I was only interested in bridging Reefs' idea of a bogus belief with making a case for compassion for the sufferer. There's some interesting insight into the mechanics of suffering there .. but I know myself well enough to know that I'm like one of the least qualified peeps on the planet to help others mitigate their suffering. Welp, I was basically in agreement that it's virtually impossible to know how the suffering complex may play out for any one person. The world is full of surprises. On the level of projection, compensation, seeking, it's the same mechanics for everybody, and none of it works as a lasting solution. As far as mitigating suffering, I don't really know how that wouldn't require allowing others to experience the crap they're avoiding. Seems most peeps associate mitigating suffering with taking pills, not being lit on fire. Go figure
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 13:53:27 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. I just see the definition for suffering narrowing to a meaningless sliver by the persistent desire to defend a notion that is plainly silly. I'm curious about the motivation. It would be simple to concede and say everyone suffers. Instead we're trapped into saying things like "pain" isn't suffering or trauma isn't suffering or animals and infants don't suffer. I'll take your word that something does cease, not being awake. It used to be that I somehow saw myself as better than my Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, non practicing, "unenlightened" folk around me. I find that in my sufering I've acquired a certain appreciation for others.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 4, 2018 14:36:45 GMT -5
It stands to reason that a life form behaves in a certain way because it has a sense of itself that is identified . If it didn't identify itself it wouldn't identify something else . You don't buy into behaviour as an indicator butt you don't explain why a bunny would behave in a defensive manner even though it doesn't recognise it's own reflection in the mirror .
How does it recognise another bunny bouncing around in the fields when it supposedly doesn't even identify with itself?It has a sense of self. Of course it has a sense of itself just as it has a sense of another bunny . You keep missing out the sense of identity because there needs a sense of identity in order to differentiate the other bunny from the fox .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 4, 2018 14:41:05 GMT -5
Yes. Gurdjieff described a human being as, carriage (body), horses, the driver (mind) and the master (the [not present] "owner"). The horses that pull the carriage are the emotions. When I hear you talking about Gurdjieff it always seems as if what he has to say I have read or heard somewhere else before. What would you say, how much of what he taught is genuine Gurdjieff? Virtually none of it. He didn't claim to originate what he taught. He (specifically said he) taught what he learned from others (but he didn't reveal certain sources, deliberately so). He is even more specific that he didn't originate the interior practices. And he said his, for him artificial ~career as a writer~, was to preserve the teaching, in theory. I have personally seen the practice self-remembering written only once (but it was no so named), it is not in any of the multiple books by or about Gurdjieff, as this is firm rule. The writer wrote concerning another field, but in a later book he described how he had participated in "the Gurdjieff Work" earlier in his life. I was not surprised, suspected as much. When I learned about Dzogchen (from Tibetan Buddhism), I surely felt Gurdjieff had penetrated the Dzogchen tradition (he spent considerable time in Tibet). The (roots of) special words he invented (for specific reasons) for parts of Beelzebub's Tales (which IS a unique allegory) comes from a wide field.
|
|