|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2018 20:23:15 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. And then it follows that trying to describe the subjective experience of life without suffering to someone still suffering will never be free of the possibility of leading them into a set of misconceptions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2018 20:24:34 GMT -5
The conception is still valid, as the imaginer imagines that they are other than the source of the imagination. what imaginer though? (** eye contact **)
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 9, 2018 20:28:23 GMT -5
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. Indeed, I understand exactly what you're saying, A, which is I never (or, well, almost never) argue the point. When I believed that the dog was suffering, I wished I had a gun, so that I could put it out of it's misery (it's hindquarters were completely smashed ) I also agree that definition is everything, as it is imperative to communication. I honestly never liked the term, 'suffering' to convey what is really more ... dissatisfaction with what is. Hence, I cannot argue against the assertion that the baby in the video is suffering.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 9, 2018 20:40:20 GMT -5
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. Indeed, I understand exactly what you're saying, A, which is I never (or, well, almost never) argue the point. When I believed that the dog was suffering, I wished I had a gun, so that I could put it out of it's misery (it's hindquarters were completely smashed ) I also agree that definition is everything, as it is imperative to communication. I honestly never liked the term, 'suffering' to convey what is really more ... dissatisfaction with what is. Hence, I cannot argue against the assertion that the baby in the video is suffering. Something Laughter said earlier triggered a thought. There once was a time when I would have spoken of spirituality, or realization, as bringing an end to suffering, but quite honestly, I think I was regurgitating at the time. It's a generally popular thing to say, and far too loosely said in my opinion. I would say that spirituality/realization can bring to an end a particular kind of 'struggle' (that is the word I am regurgitating from Laughter now lol), but I would not say that it brings an end to suffering, for reasons I explained. Yes, I would agree that that 'struggle' is about dissatisfaction with what is. And yeah, I had an animal die on me a few weeks ago, just a small furry one, but I adored him. There was a point towards the end when the body was spasming and it crossed my mind that maybe euthanasia was the best option, but the movement was to just hold him instead. Being with pets while they pass is very intense.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 20:48:46 GMT -5
I think the whole problem here is that there's no true self. Yes, of course I know that's your opinion. True self is the (a) middle layer. What happens is that every time a layer is imagined, conclusions are drawn about that imaginary layer, which sometimes involves imagining another layer. God is a really simple kind of guy.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 20:57:11 GMT -5
There's no authentic self either. The only self that shows up in a human is an imagined one, and a child has to be able to form some deceptively complex concepts in order to form one. Takes a couple of years. In the 4th Way teaching, essence (true self as I'm using the words) is defined as that which one is born with(as). [And I've said this many times here]. You can explore that, or not. Seems like one is born with various propensities, making it a unique expression. An imaginary self is built on that, and eventually needs to be seen for the illusion it is. Simple, simple.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 21:03:25 GMT -5
Actually, there is knowledge and experience, and then there is realization. The former is fundamentally illusion. Knowledge can be a map. If you are in a new city and stop and ask me directions to so-n-so. If I tell you "go 1 mile to x street, T/R, go 3 miles T/L on to x street, follow it until it dead ends, T/R go 2.8 miles, your destination is there; if you end up at the place you intended, then the knowledge was not illusory. If you do not end up where you wanted to be, the knowledge was either illusory, or you did not follow precisely the directions. It's illusory to say all knowledge is illusory. When I say illusion I don't mean false. I mean not what it appears to be. Ultimately, knowledge has no foundation, and is only useful in a relative, limited context. Knowledge can point you toward truth, it can never be that truth. The point, however, is that experience is the same sort of illusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 21:21:44 GMT -5
The personality is there at the moment of birth and will remain post SR. So personality and suffering are not related. It has something to do with perspective. A-H once defined suffering as depriving yourself of the fullness that you are. So it is basically an extreme case of misidentification or being out of alignment. Just my perspective. I would say essence is there at birth (the definition of essence in the 4th Way, what we are born with[as]). Living completely through essence would therefore mean "the fullness that you are". This self that begins when one is about 2/3 is defined in the 4th Way, as personality, it's just a word so defined (and I've used many terms here on ST's, ego/cultural self/conditioned self/false (sense of) self/mask/persona). Ego/personality/cultural self almost inevitably forms, and covers-over our essence. This, is as you say, misidentification, being out of alignment (because one can't be both simultaneously the true sense of self and the false sense of self). So what you say fits perfectly the 4th Way teaching. I could draw a few more arrows...but I've done so previously...[ The purpose of the formation of "self", is to protect essence/true self. Part of this is Reich's body armor. But what happens is that when the "self" is mostly formed, instead of protecting essence, there is an unconscious shift of identity, the child takes-its-self-to-be that which was supposed to be its protection, it "~ becomes~" the formed false sense of "self", essence is covered over, lost, still there, but ~forgotten~]. And so when ZD says that there is no separate self, it's illusory, that's an absolute fact, this false sense of self IS a fiction. I'm unclear as to why this essence requires protection. In what way? From what?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 9, 2018 21:32:02 GMT -5
In the 4th Way teaching, essence (true self as I'm using the words) is defined as that which one is born with(as). [And I've said this many times here]. You can explore that, or not. Seems like one is born with various propensities, making it a unique expression. An imaginary self is built on that, and eventually needs to be seen for the illusion it is. Simple, simple. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 9, 2018 21:40:45 GMT -5
Just my perspective. I would say essence is there at birth (the definition of essence in the 4th Way, what we are born with[as]). Living completely through essence would therefore mean "the fullness that you are". This self that begins when one is about 2/3 is defined in the 4th Way, as personality, it's just a word so defined (and I've used many terms here on ST's, ego/cultural self/conditioned self/false (sense of) self/mask/persona). Ego/personality/cultural self almost inevitably forms, and covers-over our essence. This, is as you say, misidentification, being out of alignment (because one can't be both simultaneously the true sense of self and the false sense of self). So what you say fits perfectly the 4th Way teaching. I could draw a few more arrows...but I've done so previously...[ The purpose of the formation of "self", is to protect essence/true self. Part of this is Reich's body armor. But what happens is that when the "self" is mostly formed, instead of protecting essence, there is an unconscious shift of identity, the child takes-its-self-to-be that which was supposed to be its protection, it "~ becomes~" the formed false sense of "self", essence is covered over, lost, still there, but ~forgotten~]. And so when ZD says that there is no separate self, it's illusory, that's an absolute fact, this false sense of self IS a fiction. I'm unclear as to why this essence requires protection. In what way? From what? First, sometimes physical pain is inflicted on babies and young children. Then they are also exposed to verbal abuse, I wish you were never born, Shut up, quit crying, etc. A persona is formed to deflect injury.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 22:17:01 GMT -5
SDP: Apparently you're defining "True Self" in some way other than "Source." People who attain SR realize that what we call "the universe" is a unified living intelligent whole, and THAT, or Source, or "what is," is all there is. It's an incomprehensible Presence in which there is no real separation of any kind. Many of us consider "True Self" to be a synonym for THAT-- for what Ramana called "Self." This is why some of us disagree with the idea of progress or improvement. After the illusion of selfhood is seen through, Self/Source/THAT realizes that THAT, alone, is the only "no-thing-which-is-everything" that's ever been here. It's why E. talks about "God falling into her own dream." See the bottom of page three, the juggling thread, I just elaborated on the meaning of essence/true self. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4193/more-conscious-juggling?page=3Yes, I understand all that, have for years. I would say (from my perspective, I guess I have to say that always) the illusion of selfhood which is seen through, is indeed that, what is seen through is the false sense of self, ego/persona/mask/cultural self/conditioned self. I have no problem with any of that. But that is merely a stage upon the way. The way is through essence ("True Self"). But if one does not believe there is an essence, a kernel, if one thinks the journey has been completed, then that's just the end, indeed. I have no problem with any of that, it is what it is. But I present something else, as invited by Richard Rose, and Shawn ("A library and clubhouse of philosophers"). Anybody can read what I write, or not. I often get the sense that you're not talking about something else, but rather the same thing most of the others here are saying, but in a very complex and convoluted way. Same thing happens with 'becoming conscious'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 22:18:05 GMT -5
Seems like one is born with various propensities, making it a unique expression. An imaginary self is built on that, and eventually needs to be seen for the illusion it is. Simple, simple. Agreed. I'm getting that sense again.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 22:23:42 GMT -5
[/b]unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. [/quote]A sense of self is not a 'me' structure in the mind. A sense of self does not lead to suffering. Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure.
We are moved to comfort simply because we believe it is suffering because it is acting like we do when we suffer. I'm suggesting we're missing something about how suffering happens. [/quote] Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. [/quote] ------------------------------------------ Andy:Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure. And I'm saying there isn't a 'me' structure in the infant. Andy:Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. Not if you knew it was a robot and that robots can't feel pain. What did I miss? [/quote] Well, you are missing the point that there is a 'me' structure in a baby, and this 'me' structure is the difference between AI robot and intelligent being. Apparently the AI robot can artificially 'experience' sensation, such as pain. They can be given artificial sensors apparently. [/quote] How do you figure I missed that point? I addressed it directly?
|
|
lee
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by lee on Feb 9, 2018 22:30:32 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. Good question on “what is suffering?” and very interesting perspectives too. If I may add another here which is from the angle of good-bad duality rather than subject-object duality. I would define non-physical suffering as unpleasant experiences and emotions (which is somewhat similar to E's definition) and is also a mental construct or illusion. When we can see (through the eyes of the Absolute or Source) that suffering and non-suffering are in essence the same — that they differ only in form but not in substance and are in fact the Absolute or Source in disguise masquerading as suffering and non-suffering, then we no longer suffer. For instance, while worrying about losing money in the stock market if we managed to see that all our experiences of winning and losing as well as the emotion of worrying are in essence the same and simply energies vibrating at different frequencies, and are none other than Source in disguise, then we immediately transcend this good-bad duality and free ourselves from the suffering associated with this instance of losing and worrying. OTOH, physical suffering, ie, physical pain and discomfort, are inevitable and indispensable as long as we are still ensouling a human vehicle. Although physical suffering is also a mental construct and Source in disguise, there is no need to try and transcend them because physical pain and discomfort are indicators of injury or impending injury as well as non-physical issues, so they are indispensable to our physical and holistic wellbeing and we must learn to respond to them rather than transcend them. Responding appropriately to physical suffering is also much easier when it is not complicated and compounded by non-physical suffering. Transcending duality and non-physical suffering, although an extremely critical stage on our spiritual journey, is however equivalent to only the first or second rank of Tozan and just the foundation. Deepening our transcendence further will allow us to go deeper into the territory of Love/Essence/Source and experience the subsequent ranks of Tozan and even beyond. On a more subtle level, feeling separate from, or not being able to feel, the Love that is Essence or Source is also a non-physical suffering, an existential/spiritual suffering that is the root of all other kinds of non-physical suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 9, 2018 22:32:09 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. We are not really at odds. I'm not saying Enigma's definition of suffering is wrong. We just look at it from slightly different perspectives. Enigma likes to talk about such things more in a therapeutic way. I don't.
|
|