Stosh

By me and or everyone else who reads these things , the crowd you are presenting this to, Im one of those who think that judging always happens ,( its the rendering of verdict and sentence which is the thing that should often be postponed or waived.) The purpose I would have is for establishing whether you are seriously considering the question and being sincere in your answer , so that I may judge it the best product of your view, and attend to it with appropriate diligence. If you aren't sincere on this topic there's no reason why I should respond with much sincerity. It would be a waste of both our times. Its fine to goof around or be glib, its just not productive contribution to a topic which is ,, not glib. I'm trying to get past the semantics which obfuscate most of the threads .

What could be more spiritual than that?

Can this not be in accord with , one needing to have suffered to have active aversion to it? If so , this fear requires suffering, whether you agree that any and all suffering requires fear ....

Is this one youre comfortable with personally, feel describes your view and are willing to judged by it?

This is an example of that which seems screwy When dukkha arises we call that suffering. When it ceases we call that happiness. It’s all old stuff, arising and ceasing. We are taught to watch body and mind arising and ceasing. There’s nothing else outside of this. To sum it up, there is no happiness; there’s only dukkha. We recognize suffering as suffering when it arises. Then when it ceases, we consider that to be happiness. We see it and designate it as such, but it isn’t. It’s just dukkha ceasing. Dukkha arises and ceases, arises and ceases, and we pounce on it and catch hold of it. Happiness appears and we are pleased. Unhappiness appears and we are distraught. It’s really all the same, mere arising and ceasing. When there is arising there’s something, and when there is ceasing, it’s gone. This is where we doubt. Thus it’s taught that dukkha arises and ceases, and outside of that, there is nothing. When you come down to it, there is only suffering. But we don’t see clearly. Either there is or is not happiness , either there is or is not a state of being 'dissatisfied'. If suffering is being dissatisfied and when we are happy we are actually satisfied temporarily , then suffering is not the only existing state. Its fine if you say we are sometimes happy as described but it wont last , but that doesnt mean we arent happy at the time we feel we are and have no motivations to change it. I do think I am happy most of the time in fact , would the author expect me to prefer being miserable all the time ? continuously chasing ... what? not being happy ? so I can be wise? chasing some perfect happiness that might happen some other lifetime? That doesn't sound like a good deal.

I do in fact see and understand why youre saying this, in some situations this would be very properly restraining, but in this case I want to know what he thinks about an existing phenomena.,,suffering. If we were talking about pure abstracts like defining what a perfect triangle is , there exists no real wiggle room nor nuance. But in defining what we connote is true about suffering .. the phenomena..not the word representation..we can at least see each others view of it. I asked someone else to define it , and their opinion was very different, he didn't include a lot of the stuff which Tibetan ice alluded to regarding dukkha. . but even within ! a dictionary constrained definition , there are selective choices which folks may feel appropriate to varying degrees. If you want to express your ideas on suffering, as a definition , please do ! It would be good input. But facetiously pulling something out of thin air isn't committing to what you said. We are trying to make our definitions sound , to make them correspond with that which we believe is actually true and reasonable .. as we see it. ..... I dont see what is so upsetting. .......awareness is a fine subject , for another thread perhaps.

I'm fine with a definition which fits opinion, Whats yours? That was precisely the point, to establish opinion and use a definition we could agree on.

Yeah, but I think the good stuff would at least be self consistent , not have the logical contradictions , and present a realistic possibility of authentic practice which would improve the lives of its adherents. So we can look to see that stuff. I'm sure its out there ,,, though it may be jumbled and segregated.

I agree, I don't think the person quoted was accurate about what Buddha himself would've indicated either, though it may represent accurately what one branch of Buddhists believe.

Tibetan ice, ,, The passage suggests we look at dukkha, ,,,and we are. Not being buddhist ,we will do it our way. The passage says some people think they dont suffer much, and then kindof walked away from that, Im thinking that those who do think this are better off for it. It says happy people dont develop wisdom.,, well this appears to present a choice, wisdom vs happiness,, what if we chose happiness? perhaps we would not choose buddhism. How would he decry that choice? Im thinking he could only offer his alternative, which we already discarded.

Thats even more abbreviate.. Ill go back later to desires as values,,,, but I offer ,that one cannot for all practical reasons ,maintain themselves with zero desire , though I will agree that if one IS satiated happy acceptant of the present state entirely, they arent suffering. Doesnt this conflict with buddhist,," all life is suffering?" which implies there is no happiness in life, and only potentially would death be pleasant, life not being so...? ever!

I understand where you're coming from , but the thing I believe you're not recognizing , but do see, is that one has a fear OF SOMETHING , in your example you list fear of loneliness , well that makes the loneliness the causal agent , and is therefore, primal, and only secondarily to having felt loneliness , would we have fear of repeat in the future. Yes people say fear is 'primal' because theoretically rational logical behavior is more advanced , but we are looking just beyond the -fear in the present about the future- and we see that there is a "cause". Fear , like anger and happiness has causes which prompt emotions. So our actual needs are that which is primal, Our basic emotions are fungible behavioral adaptations which (hopefully ) predispose us to appropriate behaviors , (which are actually secondary and aim at the future ),,Anger at a threat we can defeat, fear at a threat we cannot resolve, love at a person intimate, etc The look of things we would see if fear was primal , would be walking around with fears loves angers over nothing whatsoever and the adaptive connection to our future well being would be lost. You would be fearful, horny, angry, without prompt .. like a teen.

Ok so then we define it and see where we stand, I vote to elect that suffering is an emotional experience of , being in a state in the present , which we have aversion to experiencing. EX. Sadness, boredom ,pain, hunger, confusion, loneliness, fear etc. If you can abide that definition , temporarily , then it should be consequential that fear is not the only response to suffering. It also presupposes that fear is not prerequisite for an experience of suffering either. Fears such as phobias may not have a precise origin corresponding to suffering. I have never been bitten by a shark ,but I have felt pain and imagine that a shark bite would hurt. The 'suffering' is a generalized basis for fears based on any suffering I do know about ,( but the specific associations which prompt fear are in my subconscious.).. that's my premise. If its possible to have fears with no source whatsoever ... well, that would be hard to know for sure since I cant define my entire subconscious directly to ascertain that there was indeed no suffering source material whatsoever involved . I suppose its possible, but the same issue of incomplete knowlege of the subconscious would apply to everyone ,, and so no one could assert positively that there was no required basis of suffering, to prompt fear. I have no idea what internal values have to do with the issue, you could clarify on that. But if you are circling around a 'lack of acceptance for a current mental state' as being suffering or fear, well then the original statement might properly evolve to ... lack of acceptance is a thing which causes us much suffering and fear.

.

You keep bypassing my direct questions Karl, I have reasons for asking them , mainly to keep us on the same page. You are creating an artificial division between the relevance of rational concerns and fears vs the twisted rationale of phobias, which is unwarranted because the OP is that the root of ALL suffering is fears, which I am contesting ,, in favor of suffering being caused by mental state and fears being a projection into the future about that suffering. That the lady overcame the circular reaction scheme of her phobia ,( a mental state promoting fear which compounded the undesirable emotional state ) is fine and good , yes she resolved her conflict enough, but it wasn't because someone pointed out to her the silliness of her bird fear. I'm sure a hundred other folks told her it was stupid as well long before this trip came up. Suffering may indeed sometimes be due to upset over the appropriateness of ones thoughts ,, but that doesn't prove or disprove the idea that the suffering is due to a fear with no cause VS fear being allocated to associations of suffering which happen due to External cause.

.

KARL < You can have plain old fear too, not just plain old pain. Fear is most definitely based on the future outcome which is quite correct. So fear can arise and no suffering is present. Suffering always indicates a contradiction in conceptual understanding and so it can also be the cause of Fear, but it isn't necessarily a prerequisite of fear. It's fairly easy to sort this one out. When irrational fear is present then look for the cause, it will always be seen as two distinct concepts in conflict. Acknowledge the conflict, resolve the contradiction and the irrational fear vanishes like magic. I'd like to see this magic. This sounds like modern psych training , which doesn't appear to work worth a fig. I'm thinking it doesn't work for phobias most of the time,( or at least it takes years of therapy for some ), which are 'irrational'.. and then there are rational fears like dreading a visit to the in-laws because they anger and embarrass you. So what contradiction in conceptual understanding is there if I am concerned about walking on slick rocks at the beach. The basis is rational, it would be a nasty scrape and break of leg, my concern about it is elevated though. I reeally don't want to bust an ankle on those slimy barnacle toothed rocks , , but its not a thing that has ever happened to me. BTW The sensation of fear can be caused with chems , and I think we can leave those out Yes? were talking about irrational or rational brain processes right?

Yep, we suffer mentally about pain too, and can make it worse than just plain ol pain, and so I agree we are talking about two things that connect. ,, Suffering though is felt in the present about the present state, while fear ,is felt in the present about the future state. This is why suffering must be the root of the fear and not the other way around. .....,If the fear came first without suffering it would have nothing to instigate it, nor would it be a result of extrapolating about an unpleasant potential future state of being.

I really like that format, its a quick way of saying a lot. But im not sure what the meat of it means, Confucious , did appear to feel that the state could define morality, and that this codification , would enable the people to adhere to it, much as you laid out, and yes Buddhism Taoism do look beyond traditionally established definitions to imbue ones actions with a more natural sincerity..but since these two systems can and do live side by side,, as in law vs church,, I dont know where you are going with this yet.

Youre taking a very very narrow view on the intensity of suffering to find exception here Karl. Yes ,if I didnt include being uncomfortable or disliking as a minor suffering ,,then it would be an exception, but that would also prompt one reaally tiny level of fear. I hope you feel I answered fairly making it My turn, .. What thing is feared that you know of , that isnt connected with suffering by the fear-er if we include low levels of dislike as suffering?

I dont like Friday, I treat him like an inferior, but he eats as much as I do, I double my take on the island, and might like a Friday feast. .... besides Friday doesnt fit in the scenario of being alone on the island.

If my stories about the ants and stubbed toe were straw men to your eyes, then you know them to be pushovers. If they correctly make analogy as wel,l to your own position , well then you just conceded your position to be flimsy and easily defeated. To that I agree, and it leaves me puzzled why you would be promoting it.

What would one fear, if not suffering? I suffer in the heat, so I have trepidation next time, This is probably going to be unpleasant. I figure. But I wasnt hot from fear of the weather, that wouldnt even be bass ackwards, it makes no sense at all that way.