|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 11, 2018 7:02:08 GMT
I read with interest, the convo on ST about suffering. Surprise, surprise, seems some want to equate suffering with any and all degrees of pain, resistance. If we lump it all together, then plain and simply, we're missing the important distinction between the presence of the thought: I have to escape from this....this is intolerable, vs. the absence of that thought. We really are talking the difference between night and day.
Suffering is just a word. In nonduality conversations, 'suffering' is just a term that references a kind of pain that involves identification with thingness and thus, with a thought about the 'wrongness' of pain.
Absent the idea that what is happening is bad, wrong and has to go, pain, either of an emotional or physical variety, is a very different thing than pain that is accompanied by a thought that 'this needs to go.'
Babies and animals do indeed feel pain, but they do not identify with thingness, and thus, there is no thought involved that says; this is wrong, intolerable, I cannot stand it. The thought of wrongness/badness goes hand in hand with the presence of an imaginary person/intermediary.
This distinction is not a means to diminish the shittiness of pain of any kind, either emotional or physical, or to say that when a baby or animal cries, we shouldn't attend to it, but it is a means to differentiate between pain that is deemed to be intolerable vs. pain that is allowed to be, absent mental resistance to it.
I would say that the "me" structure that E has been speaking of, that relates to suffering is very much part and parcel of the thought "I must escape this", when pain is present (that means it has crossed over from simple pain to 'suffering.' )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 19:04:16 GMT
I read with interest, the convo on ST about suffering. Surprise, surprise, seems some want to equate suffering with any and all degrees of pain, resistance. If we lump it all together, then plain and simply, we're missing the important distinction between the presence of the thought: I have to escape from this....this is intolerable, vs. the absence of that thought. We really are talking the difference between night and day. Suffering is just a word. In nonduality conversations, 'suffering' is just a term that references a kind of pain that involves identification with thingness and thus, with a thought about the 'wrongness' of pain. Absent the idea that what is happening is bad, wrong and has to go, pain, either of an emotional or physical variety, is a very different thing than pain that is accompanied by a thought that 'this needs to go.' Babies and animals do indeed feel pain, but they do not identify with thingness, and thus, there is no thought involved that says; this is wrong, intolerable, I cannot stand it. The thought of wrongness/badness goes hand in hand with the presence of an imaginary person/intermediary. This distinction is not a means to diminish the shittiness of pain of any kind, either emotional or physical, or to say that when a baby or animal cries, we shouldn't attend to it, but it is a means to differentiate between pain that is deemed to be intolerable vs. pain that is allowed to be, absent mental resistance to it. I would say that the "me" structure that E has been speaking of, that relates to suffering is very much part and parcel of the thought "I must escape this", when pain is present (that means it has crossed over from simple pain to 'suffering.' ) Laughter says: I would say the same as Laughter's first two lines! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 19:04:39 GMT
I read with interest, the convo on ST about suffering. Surprise, surprise, seems some want to equate suffering with any and all degrees of pain, resistance. If we lump it all together, then plain and simply, we're missing the important distinction between the presence of the thought: I have to escape from this....this is intolerable, vs. the absence of that thought. We really are talking the difference between night and day. Suffering is just a word. In nonduality conversations, 'suffering' is just a term that references a kind of pain that involves identification with thingness and thus, with a thought about the 'wrongness' of pain. Absent the idea that what is happening is bad, wrong and has to go, pain, either of an emotional or physical variety, is a very different thing than pain that is accompanied by a thought that 'this needs to go.' Babies and animals do indeed feel pain, but they do not identify with thingness, and thus, there is no thought involved that says; this is wrong, intolerable, I cannot stand it. The thought of wrongness/badness goes hand in hand with the presence of an imaginary person/intermediary. This distinction is not a means to diminish the shittiness of pain of any kind, either emotional or physical, or to say that when a baby or animal cries, we shouldn't attend to it, but it is a means to differentiate between pain that is deemed to be intolerable vs. pain that is allowed to be, absent mental resistance to it. I would say that the "me" structure that E has been speaking of, that relates to suffering is very much part and parcel of the thought "I must escape this", when pain is present (that means it has crossed over from simple pain to 'suffering.' ) Laughter says: I would say the same as Laughter's first two lines! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 11, 2018 19:19:04 GMT
I read with interest, the convo on ST about suffering. Surprise, surprise, seems some want to equate suffering with any and all degrees of pain, resistance. If we lump it all together, then plain and simply, we're missing the important distinction between the presence of the thought: I have to escape from this....this is intolerable, vs. the absence of that thought. We really are talking the difference between night and day. Suffering is just a word. In nonduality conversations, 'suffering' is just a term that references a kind of pain that involves identification with thingness and thus, with a thought about the 'wrongness' of pain. Absent the idea that what is happening is bad, wrong and has to go, pain, either of an emotional or physical variety, is a very different thing than pain that is accompanied by a thought that 'this needs to go.' Babies and animals do indeed feel pain, but they do not identify with thingness, and thus, there is no thought involved that says; this is wrong, intolerable, I cannot stand it. The thought of wrongness/badness goes hand in hand with the presence of an imaginary person/intermediary. This distinction is not a means to diminish the shittiness of pain of any kind, either emotional or physical, or to say that when a baby or animal cries, we shouldn't attend to it, but it is a means to differentiate between pain that is deemed to be intolerable vs. pain that is allowed to be, absent mental resistance to it. I would say that the "me" structure that E has been speaking of, that relates to suffering is very much part and parcel of the thought "I must escape this", when pain is present (that means it has crossed over from simple pain to 'suffering.' ) Good call, Figs. I read over there for a bit, too. My buddy, da Big D  , calls it this way- “Pain is not the same as suffering. Left to itself, the body discharges pain spontaneously, letting go of it the moment that the underlying cause is healed. Suffering is pain that we hold on to. It comes from the mind’s mysterious instinct to believe that pain is good, or that it cannot be escaped, or that the person deserves it.”
Nice. It's a very good conversation, over there on ST, actually, beyond the attempts by some to assassinate the word 'suffering.' |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 11, 2018 19:22:04 GMT
I read with interest, the convo on ST about suffering. Surprise, surprise, seems some want to equate suffering with any and all degrees of pain, resistance. If we lump it all together, then plain and simply, we're missing the important distinction between the presence of the thought: I have to escape from this....this is intolerable, vs. the absence of that thought. We really are talking the difference between night and day. Suffering is just a word. In nonduality conversations, 'suffering' is just a term that references a kind of pain that involves identification with thingness and thus, with a thought about the 'wrongness' of pain. Absent the idea that what is happening is bad, wrong and has to go, pain, either of an emotional or physical variety, is a very different thing than pain that is accompanied by a thought that 'this needs to go.' Babies and animals do indeed feel pain, but they do not identify with thingness, and thus, there is no thought involved that says; this is wrong, intolerable, I cannot stand it. The thought of wrongness/badness goes hand in hand with the presence of an imaginary person/intermediary. This distinction is not a means to diminish the shittiness of pain of any kind, either emotional or physical, or to say that when a baby or animal cries, we shouldn't attend to it, but it is a means to differentiate between pain that is deemed to be intolerable vs. pain that is allowed to be, absent mental resistance to it. I would say that the "me" structure that E has been speaking of, that relates to suffering is very much part and parcel of the thought "I must escape this", when pain is present (that means it has crossed over from simple pain to 'suffering.' ) Laughter says: I would say the same as Laughter's first two lines! While I would agree that there is an apparent intertwining between pain and suffering, pain itself does not 'cause' suffering, rather, suffering involves a mental overlay...the presence of some-thing that is not inherent in pain itself. And 'if humans were machines' could there even be pain, let alone suffering?...thus, seems to me, it's a pointless comment to make, a meaningless comparison to draw between a machine and a human. Both experiences, well really, ANY experience at all, requires a sense of Being at the helm of it. While I cannot say for certain, as far as I know, machines don't know Being. That said, the point where pain becomes suffering is precisely the point where the thought 'this is intolerable' enters in. Nothing ambiguous or murky about it at all, as I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 11, 2018 19:32:17 GMT
Nice. It's a very good conversation, over there on ST, actually, beyond the attempts by some to assassinate the word 'suffering.' Have you ever had someone point out to you that so and so is suffering in silence? What the hell is that all about? I know when I've hurt myself at times, like whacking a thumb with a hammer, at first, while trying not to yell, I'll stifle the pain. With massive amounts of silence. I may, for instance, hop on one leg without trying to fall over, but one has to have a silent mind to even attempt this. I think perhaps that's a reference to that stoic kind of suffering....where although one is not outwardly complaining, inside, he is bound up in the thought that what is happening should not be happening and that it is intolerable. But, yes, True silence, as in 'a silent mind/abidance in silence/quietude' kind of thing, would definitely mean an absence of suffering, (as I define suffering). It is a very particular thought/idea that gives rise to suffering. Absent abidance in ideas, there is no suffering....there still might be a degree of pain, though....a bit of emotional irritation, discord, dis-ease can still arise from time to time...but if there is no thought saying that that is wrong, it will just easily, effortlessly pass on through, no problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 14:30:21 GMT
Laughter says: I would say the same as Laughter's first two lines! While I would agree that there is an apparent intertwining between pain and suffering, pain itself does not 'cause' suffering, rather, suffering involves a mental overlay...the presence of some-thing that is not inherent in pain itself. And 'if humans were machines' could there even be pain, let alone suffering?...thus, seems to me, it's a pointless comment to make, a meaningless comparison to draw between a machine and a human. Both experiences, well really, ANY experience at all, requires a sense of Being at the helm of it. While I cannot say for certain, as far as I know, machines don't know Being. That said, the point where pain becomes suffering is precisely the point where the thought 'this is intolerable' enters in. Nothing ambiguous or murky about it at all, as I see it. The kind of design matters a lot here. Nature has designed a human in such a way that it would allow human suffer and also it would allow to experience the wonders of the world. But design of an animal doesn't allow the animal to suffer(at least it doesn't allow animal to psychologically suffer). So pain in animal no way lead to the suffering and it only remains as pain but pain in human influences suffering as Laughter said. But as Enigma says Pain in human is not suffering is something can't be accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2018 18:56:17 GMT
While I would agree that there is an apparent intertwining between pain and suffering, pain itself does not 'cause' suffering, rather, suffering involves a mental overlay...the presence of some-thing that is not inherent in pain itself. And 'if humans were machines' could there even be pain, let alone suffering?...thus, seems to me, it's a pointless comment to make, a meaningless comparison to draw between a machine and a human. Both experiences, well really, ANY experience at all, requires a sense of Being at the helm of it. While I cannot say for certain, as far as I know, machines don't know Being. That said, the point where pain becomes suffering is precisely the point where the thought 'this is intolerable' enters in. Nothing ambiguous or murky about it at all, as I see it. The kind of design matters a lot here. Nature has designed a human in such a way that it would allow human suffer and also it would allow to experience the wonders of the world. But design of an animal doesn't allow the animal to suffer(at least it doesn't allow animal to psychologically suffer). So pain in animal no way lead to the suffering and it only remains as pain but pain in human influences suffering as Laughter said. But as Enigma says Pain in human is not suffering is something can't be accepted. yeah...I think I mostly agree. This all depends of course, upon how one defines 'suffering.' For me, it is the mental overlay, the thought, that this should not be happening and I need to escape beyond this moment in time, that is suffering. It does not seem as though animals have capacity for that thought, no, as it involves judgement, identification with form, and thoughts about time, projections to the future. Important to note though, just because a situation does not create 'suffering' within a particular, apparent Being, does not mean that their apparent discomfort, pain, fear, aversion, attempts to escape, etc. should go, or more importantly 'will go', ignored. Pain only 'influences' suffering if/when one is identified with judgement, form, time.....all stuff that plays into the 'me structure' E was talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2018 19:50:58 GMT
Again Andrew, your 'agenda' is showing. You fear that delineating pain from suffering is going to result in abject cruelty, an absence of compassion for the pain, discomfort or fear that another is apparently experiencing, and that is coloring your view here, fueling your efforts to lump suffering and pain together.
the true value in defining suffering as a mental/thought component, a conceptual overlay placed on top of pain, either physical or emotional, is in seeing first hand the role that mind plays in obscuring peace.
I assure you, one who is at peace himself, continues to respond with a compassion and empathy that is wholly appropriate to the situation, in the event that another appears before him, who appears to be in pain.
It is actually those who get swept up within experience, lost to it, who then resort to further conceptualization to formulate excuses for why they are failing to behave kindly and respectfully to others. (Fwiw, I see you doing this yourself....you are so swept up in the idea of a broken world that needs fixing, that you've behaved unkindly, with a lack of consideration, to those right under you nose).
'Cept, no one is rationalizing away anything. If some-one, some-thing is appearing to be in pain, discomfort, withdrawing from an unwanted stimulus, and the one who sees that is present, clear, conscious, and not at all swept up in the story, the action taken will always be appropriately compassionate.
To see the role mind/conceptualization plays in escalating and deepening basic pain either mental/emotional or physical, into 'suffering,' does not mean that one becomes insensitive to the apparent pain or suffering of another. If anything, I'd say it makes one more able to respond appropriately.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 12, 2018 20:11:36 GMT
Again Andrew, your 'agenda' is showing. You fear that delineating pain from suffering is going to result in abject cruelty, an absence of compassion for the pain, discomfort or fear that another is apparently experiencing, and that is coloring your view here, fueling your efforts to lump suffering and pain together. the true value in defining suffering as a mental/thought component, a conceptual overlay placed on top of pain, either physical or emotional, is in seeing first hand the role that mind plays in obscuring peace. I assure you, one who is at peace himself, continues to respond with a compassion and empathy that is wholly appropriate to the situation, in the event that another appears before him, who appears to be in pain. It is actually those who get swept up within experience, lost to it, who then resort to further conceptualization to formulate excuses for why they are failing to behave kindly and respectfully to others. (Fwiw, I see you doing this yourself....you are so swept up in the idea of a broken world that needs fixing, that you've behaved unkindly, with a lack of consideration, to those right under you nose). 'Cept, no one is rationalizing away anything. If some-one, some-thing is appearing to be in pain, discomfort, withdrawing from an unwanted stimulus, and the one who sees that is present, clear, conscious, and not at all swept up in the story, the action taken will always be appropriately compassionate. To see the role mind/conceptualization plays in escalating and deepening basic pain either mental/emotional or physical, into 'suffering,' does not mean that one becomes insensitive to the apparent pain or suffering of another. If anything, I'd say it makes one more able to respond appropriately. That's pretty desperate Fig. The human population isn't wrong when they observe a baby screaming and know that the baby is suffering. Equally, the human population isn't wrong if they see a deer writhing in agony and know the deer is suffering. Only some spiritual folks who want to talk about a specific kind of human struggle redefine suffering (and there may be value to that redefinition at times) but it can only ever be a temporary redefinition, because it is physiologically necessary for there to be suffering when there is pain, and no amount of re-definition will change that physiological necessity. If you offer comfort to a baby when it is screaming, it isn't because it is in pain, it is because of the suffering component in pain. If you genuinely believed that pain did not have a suffering component, there would be no reason to all to offer comfort. Without that suffering component, it wouldn't even be a neutral sensation, it wouldn't be 'pain' at all. |
|
, calls it this way-
