What is Suffering?

[dwai]

Who are you though? "You" are not separate from thoughts but are "you" the sum of your past memory and future projections based on our limited senses/thoughts?

 

What do you mean by the merging of intents? If I intend to do something but do not do it... and why only sentient beings? If a rock falls and kills a man who's intent was it?

Are we so sure about that? I'm not getting rid of anything or add anything, just trying to see what is for what it is rather than attaching a label to it called "me".

 

If a rock falls and kills a man, it is no one's intent (provided there wasn't another person who dropped the rock). It just happened. Stuff just happens...they are called accidents

...or do they?

;P

 

There is a way in which the natural world operates...and one way to minimize suffering is to harmonize with that way.

 

There is also a state that transcends the way the natural world operates...and to access that and activate pure prajna is also another way to minimize suffering. But there is not much difference between transcending the way of the natural world and harmonizing oneself with it. The latter is a subset of the former...it is also a way to access the former.

 

my 2 cents worth...

[Unconditioned]

If a rock falls and kills a man, it is no one's intent (provided there wasn't another person who dropped the rock). It just happened. Stuff just happens...they are called accidents

...or do they?

;P

 

There is a way in which the natural world operates...and one way to minimize suffering is to harmonize with that way.

 

There is also a state that transcends the way the natural world operates...and to access that and activate pure prajna is also another way to minimize suffering. But there is not much difference between transcending the way of the natural world and harmonizing oneself with it. The latter is a subset of the former...it is also a way to access the former.

 

my 2 cents worth...

 

That was partly the point I was trying to make, so thank you

 

I don't know much about transcendent states, I've had experiences but I tend not to label them out of concern for getting caught as one of them being "final".

[Marblehead]

But I totally agree with you. "You" can't get rid of "you." Whether it is because of D.O. or a Self, to deny an "I" is to deny existence. Both Buddhism and Hinduism point to transforming this "I" into a different state so that one may escape suffering.

 

All interactions and events happen according to the merging of intents of all sentient beings, so to say "I" am not part of this picture is ridiculous. You're both the creator and the created. .

 

Nicely said. I'm really not anti-Buddhist even though it might be hard to distinguish sometimes.

 

You're both the creator and the created.

 

This is a concept that I have heard many Taoists suggest. I don't normally talk about it much.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

Are we so sure about that? I'm not getting rid of anything or add anything, just trying to see what is for what it is rather than attaching a label to it called "me".

 

No, I'm not absolutely sure of anything. I have to assume that I exist because someone is typing on this keyboead right now.

 

I agree, it is not such a good idea to label ourself or anything else. This act only polarizes.

 

My best guess is that you exist. Yes, All is One. But each piece is special. Each piece has its special place to fill which is what allows All to be One.

 

And I agree, we should not get rid of anything nor should we add anything to what is. There is where the truth is. Yeah, I know. What truth? I have no idea.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

But I don't think words such as "natural/true state," is relevant to discussing liberation.

 

Not in my opinion. Because the realization is seeing how things truly are, how they truly arise and how they are truly empty of any inherent nature other than the nature of endless dependencies. It's not the conditioned nature, but rather the unconditioned nature that liberates, so it's not dependent origination, but seeing through it which liberates. From a point of view of discussion though this also arises dependent upon causes and conditions, as the inherent potential or Buddha nature is always there as a primary condition, but not as a thing, rather as a potential of awareness which is also a dependent arising and the secondary condition comes in like a mirror from a teaching from a great teacher, or a great teacher his or herself. Experientially though, this duality ceases to have preeminence.

 

It's seeing that things are naturally dependent, and that they are naturally and inherently empty of any ability to either bind or liberate, thus one is liberated by realization of non-abiding nature and free from concepts of samsara (bondage) and nirvana (liberation). From here, one may offer endlessly and freely. So, again it's just phraseology, not necessarily a dogma. But, it's a phraseology that is used often enough in non-dual philosophies when discussing the state of liberation and it's said to be natural, because it's just seeing how things are in reality.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

I like so much when you speak in generalities but when you go into specifics you blow me away. Hehehe.

 

Your last post: First half - 100% agreement. Second half - oh well.

 

An example:

 

This statement: There is also a state that transcends the way the natural world operates ...

 

Nothing in this universe can happen unless it is a natural event. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. (My opinion, of course.)

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

So, again it's just phraseology, not necessarily a dogma.

 

Amen!!!!!

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

[Unconditioned]

... there is no transcendent self, just transcending self-awareness, or to put it in lay-man terms; a self that's free from itself while being nothing other than itself as a play, sort of speak.

 

This definition captures what I've tried to say in a lot of posts but with way too many words.

 

Very good stuff, thanks for sharing.

[Marblehead]

Buddhists agree with you Marble, that there is no transcendent self, just transcending self-awareness, or to put it in lay-man terms; a self that's free from itself while being nothing other than itself as a play, sort of speak. Rather liberation in Buddhism is merely seeing how the nature of everything is, it's not a recognition of a preeminent Self.

 

 

Gee. I get to agree with another Buddhist. Yea! for me.

 

... seeing how the nature of everything is, it's not a recognition of a preeminent Self.

 

See how easy it was for you to say that?

 

I have said the same thing only using different words.

 

Happy Trails!

[Lucky7Strikes]

From here, one may offer endlessly and freely. So, again it's just phraseology, not necessarily a dogma. But, it's a phraseology that is used often enough in non-dual philosophies when discussing the state of liberation and it's said to be natural, because it's just seeing how things are in reality.

 

The word does get tossed around here and there, but its basic meaning connotes a state one "should" be in as if all other states are delusions. "Naturalness" is just what simply happens whether it is Nirvana or Samsara.

[Vajrahridaya]

The word does get tossed around here and there, but its basic meaning connotes a state one "should" be in as if all other states are delusions. "Naturalness" is just what simply happens whether it is Nirvana or Samsara.

 

Yes sure... I can agree with that. I am also one that has debated with people against using the word "natural" as an intellectual or emotional excuse to suffer psychologically.

 

That's not the connotation I am utilizing though.

 

 

 

..................................................................................................................

 

To answer the overall question though. I would say psychological suffering is merely ignorance of the true nature of all things and beings.

 

Gee. I get to agree with another Buddhist. Yea! for me.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Uh oh!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Who are you though? "You" are not separate from thoughts but are "you" the sum of your past memory and future projections based on our limited senses/thoughts?

 

What do you mean by the merging of intents? If I intend to do something but do not do it... and why only sentient beings? If a rock falls and kills a man who's intent was it?

 

Nature has its own intent and spirit. It acts according to its own laws.

 

Merging of intents...here's how I understand it. Two people are in a car and discuss what route they should take. It would be wrong to say that either one had complete control over the final decision. It would also be wrong to say that both had no input in the outcome.

 

Now imagine this with infinite variables!

 

Same applies to the notion of "I." Yes, I am the sum of my memories and future projections that create a sense of will. This further creates more memories and projections through interactions with other consciousness intents. In turn your own actions affect the existence of other mind-intent-personas. All dependent on one another!

 

Thus impermanence gives potential for permanence, and Samsara gives potential for Nirvana.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,

 

I like so much when you speak in generalities but when you go into specifics you blow me away. Hehehe.

 

Your last post: First half - 100% agreement. Second half - oh well.

 

An example:

 

This statement: There is also a state that transcends the way the natural world operates ...

 

Nothing in this universe can happen unless it is a natural event. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. (My opinion, of course.)

 

Happy Trails!

Amen!!!!!

 

Happy Trails!

 

My intention was to emphasize that the Natural World is part of the Tao and the Tao is the superset or pre-eminent existence of which the natural world is a miniscule part.

 

Again, by Natural world I mean that world that can be accessed by sensory inputs.

 

Happy Trails to you as well...I have realized that these discussions are infact detrimental to progress...so adieu

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

I cannot apologize for asking for clarification to things others have said when I do not understand what they have said.

 

And I don't mean to appear to be closed-minded but there are some aspects of my life where I feel I have an understanding and when someone suggests that I do not really understand it is only natural for me to ask them to convince me with verifiable evidence that I am wrong with proof of what they understand as the truth.

 

I am willing to discuss any subject I have even a remote bit of knowledge of - I can always do additional research if the discussion is being fruitful.

 

But yes, for us to discuss abstract concepts in a thread that is supposed to be discussing suffering is a distraction.

 

And so, once again, I will suggest that 'suffering' is psychological and therefore can be eliminated with mindfulness, awareness, and positive thoughts without any need for mystical or magical potions.

 

Happy Trails!

Edited September 5, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Dwai,

 

 

And so, once again, I will suggest that 'suffering' is psychological and therefore can be eliminated with mindfulness, awareness, and positive thoughts without any need for mystical or magical potions.

 

Happy Trails!

 

As a Buddhist, I do agree!

[Marblehead]

As a Buddhist, I do agree!

 

Beautiful!

 

So that brings to mind: "How then is this (mindfulness, awareness, and positive thoughts) attained?

 

I would like to suggest that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way. The ways are many, probably just as many as there are individuals wishing for attainment.

 

What works for one may not work for another. We each must find 'our' way; just as we each must walk our own journey.

 

I rarely speak about religion but I think that this is one area where religion can play an important, positive role.

 

So I suggest that if it is through Buddhism or Christianity that one finds the way to attainment then it is all good.

 

In this case, I suggest that the ends do justify the means (as long as it does no harm to others, of course).

 

Happy Trails!

[ontherightpath]

Thank you for all this good information as for me I agree with most all on suffering, and to limit our desires will help but we still have to deal with our expectations regardless we have them. If you dont understand what Im saying please forgive me very knew to this and still learning so plese help me.

[Marblehead]

Thank you for all this good information as for me I agree with most all on suffering, and to limit our desires will help but we still have to deal with our expectations regardless we have them. If you dont understand what Im saying please forgive me very knew to this and still learning so plese help me.

 

You are doing very well. Hang in there.

 

Yes, I agree with you. We do need deal with our (nasty) habit of placing our expectations on any and all things external to us.

 

But in real life there are limits to this because if you are the owner of a business you will give an employee their job specifications and you will always expect them to meet your expectations.

 

However, in our personal life we should have few, if any, expectations. This, I think, will allow us to be much more receptive to reality and the hidden beauties of life.

 

Happy Trails!

[Adj]

suffering = resistance to what is.

[Marblehead]

suffering = resistance to what is.

 

That's valid, I think.

 

Happy Trails!

[contrivedname!]

suffering = resistance to what is.

 

i'll agree with that and expand a bit

 

what forms our version of what is? our experiential lens, ie our past experiences influence and dictate how we precieve the present and what we project onto our possible future. by setting up an absolute reality or truth we miss out on being able to flow with the moment. thought to thought most people are sizing up and boxing up the fluid nature of reality into conceptions and labels which, while useful as tools of communication, tend to end up being viewed of as reality as it is rather than an approximation. then when one begins to fixate on these tools it ends in suffering because when the conceptual mind loses its flexibility, reality for that individual takes on a stagnant rigid view as ruled by certain metaphysics, philosophies, dogmas, etc.

 

what about when the mind fixates? this is a perfect opportunity for contemplation. what is the root of your fixation? how is it interconnected with your life and experiences? dont jump to conclusions allow the thoughts to rise and fall in regards to your contemplation. escapism is trying to cut off fixation with concepts; working through it is when you deal with it directly as is with out falling into more conceptualization on the subject.

 

suffering is indeed dependent upon fixation. it would seem dependent on temperments and circumstances of individuals; different folks have differing fixation. not everybody fixates on sex, not everyone on drugs, not everyone on some spiritual trip, not every one on the pain of their cancer, etc.

 

attachment to outcomes requires projection of a possible future which is partially why many buddhist masters encourage people to remain present. attachment to outcomes already past pulls one out of the present situation and for some, will lead to further projections about their existence, ie how they self identify based on past experience. does that say one should cut off all thoughts of past and future? no. the problem with projecting past or future is that many folks fixate and when things happen differently than expected they suffer or they perpetuate their own suffering through attachment to past 'wrongs' done to them, loved ones or things lost, etc.

 

this is all my take of course based on my experiential lens

 

@ Blasto - The only system? what about stoicism?, that system seems pretty concerned with the cessation of suffering.

 

chris

[~jK~]

Could Suffering be

Non-Enlightenment?

What is a clear mind worth?

[Marblehead]

Good points of interest in that post of your's Contrivedname! Thanks for sharing.

 

What is a clear mind worth?

 

I think it is beyond the concept of placing value.

 

Happy Trails!

[~jK~]

Good points of interest in that post of your's Contrivedname! Thanks for sharing.

 

What is a clear mind worth?

 

I think it is beyond the concept of placing value.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Amigo- maybe all we got to worry about is the mechanics of the process .. Si ?

Maybe we just need to get the 3 parts working in tune

Like a fine chebby !

 

Got to breathing ok,

got to have good gas,

got to have the beautiful body...

 

Then got to give it a run untill all is fine tuned.

 

Ain't no big thing.

We all done it before when being born.

No better place to meditate besides the mama's womb.

No better place for da grub besides mama's own umbilical cord feeding.

And there for sure ain't no better breath than that first breath to wake a baby!

 

 

 

Original means to originate (orig ) from nature (nal)

 

All that is - has been before

with its own natural origins

including enlightenment.

 

Buddha was only a teacher of what he had experienced.

No God, No Savior,

Only a man

wanting to give relief

To stop suffering from ignorance by turning on the light.

[Marblehead]

Amigo- maybe all we got to worry about is the mechanics of the process .. Si ?

 

Buddha was only a teacher of what he had experienced.

No God, No Savior,

Only a man

wanting to give relief

To stop suffering from ignorance by turning on the light.

 

True, but we can't concern ourself with the mechanics of the process until after we understand that there are processes that can be applied.

 

And yes, I agree, ignorance is a blockage preventing the understanding that suffering can be eliminated. And I agree that the original Buddhist understanding is one of the many processes and is an excellent way.

 

BTW Interesting forum name, yours. You are 'jk' with infinity (~) on both ends. A truely good Buddhist name.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

And there for sure ain't no better breath than that first breath to wake a baby!

 

 

Actually we're born in fear. Most are at least. Our first breath is not a fun one. We aren't born enlightened. As children our unconscious conditionings from past lives haven't taken shape yet, so we seem a bit pure and we do full body breathing and feeling, but we don't have true wisdom, thus the conditions of entrapment role over us and take over as the years role by. Until we find the spiritual path and start de-wiring those conditions.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Vajrahridaya