Fear is the root of All suffering

[Karl]

Suffering: A state of mental discontent in which desires conflict with reality.

 

 

That I think corks it. Values are desires and not 'needs' because of free will choice. It fits nicely with both Buddhist, Tau and existence from the perspective of objectivity. It's a bridge. Reduce desire to nothing and there is no suffering.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

On the contrary. Okay. What do I say now? I just needed to disagree with you.

 

Beyond good and evil, Nietzsche, didn't talk much about gods. Afterall, how does an Atheist talk about something that doesn't exist?

 

There is a world of difference between the philosophy of Hegel and Nietzsche.

 

Good and evil are, after all, man made concepts. Rules for the common people who are unable to think for themselves.

 

Nature is beyond good and evil. The processes of the universe are beyond good and evil.

 

As long as we act/react consistent with the processes of Nature we are basically beyond good and evil. But then there is that attachment that requires us to take responsibility for our acts and reactions.

That's true, but only when man is eliminated. Good and evil are only pertinent to man. I'm not thinking of it in the religious sense though it works fine. You can substitute which ever opposites you wish, but mans morality is driven by experience and desire. Does anyone commit murder, rape, genocide, theft etc and think it's good ?

 

I think there are not 'rules' of good and evil, but they can be roughly codified as natural laws without difficulty. Then we use a jury of peers to determine if those rules have been broken. Therefore self defence would not be murder, taking back stolen property would not be theft.

 

God could be defined as the ultimate authority and leave it there. If one is an atheist then ultimate authority rests in man, if a statist, it is the state, if religious then a deity. It has to cope with the reality of mans existence and beliefs as they are.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Karl

[Stosh]

Suffering: A state of mental discontent in which desires conflict with reality.

That I think corks it. Values are desires and not 'needs' because of free will choice. It fits nicely with both Buddhist, Tau and existence from the perspective of objectivity. It's a bridge. Reduce desire to nothing and there is no suffering.

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! Edited August 25, 2015 by Stosh

[Tibetan_Ice]

Suffering: A state of mental discontent in which desires conflict with reality.

 

 

That I think corks it. Values are desires and not 'needs' because of free will choice. It fits nicely with both Buddhist, Tau and existence from the perspective of objectivity. It's a bridge. Reduce desire to nothing and there is no suffering.

You have a superficial knowledge of Buddhism and obviously cannot see where your definition does not fit.

The Buddha defined dukkha very succinctly and doesn't need any help from you.

 

From The Teachings of Ajahn Chah

A collection of Ajahn Chah’s Dhamma talks:

 

Eat little! Sleep little! Speak little! Whatever it may be of worldly habit, lessen them, go against their power. Don’t just do as you like, don’t indulge in your thought. Stop this slavish following. You must constantly go against the stream of ignorance. This is called “discipline”. When you discipline your heart, it becomes very dissatisfied and begins to struggle. It becomes restricted and oppressed. When the heart is prevented from doing what it wants to do, it starts wandering and struggling. Suffering (dukkha)1 becomes apparent to us.

 

This dukkha, this suffering, is the first of the four noble truths. Most people want to get away from it. They don’t want to have any kind of suffering at all. Actually, this suffering is what brings us wisdom; it makes us contemplate dukkha. Happiness (sukha) tends to make us close our eyes and ears. It never allows us to develop patience. Comfort and happiness make us careless. Of these two defilements, Dukkha is the easiest to see. Therefore we must bring up suffering in order to put an end to our suffering. We must first know what dukkha is before we can know how to practice meditation.

 

1Dukkha: refers to the implicit unsatisfactoriness, incompleteness, imperfection, insecurity of all conditioned phenomena, which, because they are always changing, are always liable to cause suffering. Dukkha refers to all forms of unpleasantness from gross bodily pains and the suffering implicit in old age, sickness and death, to subtle feelings such as being parted from what we like or associated with what we dislike, to refined mental states such as dullness, boredom, restlessness, agitation, etc. This is one of the most misunderstood concepts and one of the most important for spiritual development.

 

...

There is difficulty in practice, but in anything we undertake we have to pass through difficulty to reach ease. In Dhamma practice we begin with the truth of dukkha, the pervasive unsatisfactoriness of existence. But as soon as we experience this we lose heart. We don’t want to look at it. Dukkha is really the truth, but we want to get around it somehow. It’s similar to the way we don’t like to look at old people, but prefer to look at those who are young.

 

If we don’t want to look at dukkha we will never understand dukkha, no matter how many births we go through. Dukkha is a noble truth. If we allow ourselves to face it then we will start to seek a way out of it. If we are trying to go somewhere and the road is blocked we will think about how to make a pathway. Working at it day after day we can get through. When we encounter problems we develop wisdom like this. Without seeing dukkha we don’t really look into and resolve our problems; we just pass them by indifferently.

 

My way of training people involves some suffering, because suffering is the Buddha’s path to enlightenment. He wanted us to see suffering and to see origination, cessation and the path. This is the way out for all the ariya, the awakened ones. If you don’t go this way there is no way out. The only way is knowing suffering, knowing the cause of suffering, knowing the cessation of suffering and knowing the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering. This is the way that the ariya, beginning with Stream Entry, were able to escape. It’s necessary to know suffering.

 

If we know suffering, we will see it in everything we experience. Some people feel that they don’t really suffer much. Practice in Buddhism is for the purpose of freeing ourselves from suffering. What should we do not to suffer anymore? When dukkha arises we should investigate to see the causes of its arising. Then once we know that, we can practice to remove those causes. Suffering, origination, cessation – in order to bring it to cessation we have to understand the path of practice. Then once we travel the path to fulfillment, dukkha will no longer arise. In Buddhism, this is the way out.

 

Opposing our habits creates some suffering. Generally we are afraid of suffering. If something will make us suffer, we don’t want to do it. We are interested in what appears to be good and beautiful, but we feel that anything involving suffering is bad. It’s not like that. Suffering is saccadhamma, truth. If there is suffering in the heart it becomes the cause that makes you think about escaping. It leads you to contemplate. You won’t sleep so soundly because you will be intent on investigating to find out what is really going on, trying to see causes and their results.

 

Happy people don’t develop wisdom. They are asleep. It’s like a dog that eats its fill. Afterwards it doesn’t want to do anything. It can sleep all day. It won’t bark if a burglar comes – it’s too full, too tired. But if you only give it a little food it will be alert and awake. If someone tries to come sneaking around, it will jump up and start barking. Have you seen that?

 

We humans are trapped and imprisoned in this world and have trou-bles in such abundance, and we are always full of doubts, confusion and worry. This is no game. It’s really something difficult and troublesome. So there’s something we need to get rid of. According to the way of spiritual cultivation we should give up our bodies, give up ourselves. We have to resolve to give our lives. We can see the example of great renunciants, such as the Buddha. He was a noble of the warrior caste, but he was able to leave it all behind and not turn back. He was the heir to riches and power, but he could renounce them.

 

Edited August 25, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Karl]

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!

 

It doesn't conflict with 'all life is suffering' because that is the Buddhists belief and so desire in Buddhism is never satiated and suffering is always the result. To an extent this is also Mises philosophy on human action. If we turn again to Rand objectivism we can see a chink that desires can be sufficiently met and even exceeded as long as they are not placed wholly on material things, but where sufficient material things are present. In other words it isn't true that there is no happiness in life and Buddah didn't say that- he said all life is unmet desires-isn't that just a version of ' by the sweat of your brow ' in the Bible ?

 

I agree that you cannot maintain yourself with zero desires and that in essence is what I believe some people are trying to do instead of satisfying their desires minimally in the case of necessary things such as food and shelter, but greatly in the case of desires that do not revolve directly around obtaining physical gratification. I read that Buddah tried abstinence and discarded it.

[Karl]

You have a superficial knowledge of Buddhism and obviously cannot see where your definition does not fit.

The Buddha defined dukkha very succinctly and doesn't need any help from you.

From The Teachings of Ajahn Chah

A collection of Ajahn Chah’s Dhamma talks:

I see nothing that conflicts with my definition at all, however I see several logical flaws in that talk which isn't given by Buddah.

 

Happy people have developed wisdom which is why they are happy. One needs suffering to know suffering is circular reasoning. There are several problems with his argument which invalidates it.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Karl

[Stosh]

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.

[Karl]

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.

 

Exactly, the fallacy of the false alternative. Wisdom or happiness but not both, or some other option. The entire passage is riddled with logical fallacies. I stopped after about ten. There isn't a coherent argument, it's just a salesman selling his wares to the naive.

[Stosh]

Exactly, the fallacy of the false alternative. Wisdom or happiness but not both, or some other option. The entire passage is riddled with logical fallacies. I stopped after about ten. There isn't a coherent argument, it's just a salesman selling his wares to the naive.

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.

[Karl]

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.

 

That's precisely what I think. Unless we can get the words directly from Buddah then everything is second hand. I wouldn't decry Buddhism or Taoism, but the words have been through so many heads it's hard to know what the essential philosophy was.

[Stosh]

That's precisely what I think. Unless we can get the words directly from Buddah then everything is second hand. I wouldn't decry Buddhism or Taoism, but the words have been through so many heads it's hard to know what the essential philosophy was.

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. 

[Brian]

I find rather amusing the process by which the succinct "definition" a few posts back was derived. It was an iterative process, beginning from a conclusion built upon assumptions unidentified as such and shaped by unstated personal beliefs, which developed a lengthy narrative about what the definition must be like in order to comply with this preconceived conclusion. Then the narrative was abstracted into a dense statement carefully crafted to eliminate indications of the assumptions and give the appearance of objectivity while in fact making it inevitable that any calculus depending upon that definition must lead to the foregone conclusion.

 

Brilliant! Self-deluding, mind you, but a brilliant example of logos run amok.

[Karl]

I find rather amusing the process by which the succinct "definition" a few posts back was derived. It was an iterative process, beginning from a conclusion built upon assumptions unidentified as such and shaped by unstated personal beliefs, which developed a lengthy narrative about what the definition must be like in order to comply with this preconceived conclusion. Then the narrative was abstracted into a dense statement carefully crafted to eliminate indications of the assumptions and give the appearance of objectivity while in fact making it inevitable that any calculus depending upon that definition must lead to the foregone conclusion.Brilliant! Self-deluding, mind you, but a brilliant example of logos run amok.

 

You think that ?

 

Can you produce a better definition Brian. The idea isn't just to present negative criticism to support you own position but to have a go at producing something which is broad and narrow enough to serve.

 

Standing on the side lines and saying 'that's crap' isn't getting us far.

[Brian]

You think that ? Can you produce a better definition Brian. The idea isn't just to present negative criticism to support you own position but to have a go at producing something which is broad and narrow enough to serve. Standing on the side lines and saying 'that's crap' isn't getting us far.

Don't you understand yet, Karl, that I have no interest in playing logical games with you? Logic is a very powerful and useful tool when used appropriately and with explicit awareness of its limitations and dangers. Logic, however, (and regardless of whether we are talking Aristotelian term logic or propositional calculus or mathematical logic or Boolean algebra or whatever) only addresses a tiny sliver of reality, in the same way that traditional understandings of "matter" and "energy" only account for a fraction of "what which is" (see also -- "dark matter" and "dark energy").

 

If you must have an alternate definition in order for my statement to be considered germane (although you have repeatedly stated that you reject out of hand any evidence or theories which conflict with your personal belief system so this is all really more for other readers than for you), consider this:

Suffering is a state of emotional anguish caused by dwelling upon a source of physical or psychological discomfort.

 

I just pulled that one out of thin air...

[Stosh]

I find rather amusing the process by which the succinct "definition" a few posts back was derived. It was an iterative process, beginning from a conclusion built upon assumptions unidentified as such and shaped by unstated personal beliefs, which developed a lengthy narrative about what the definition must be like in order to comply with this preconceived conclusion. Then the narrative was abstracted into a dense statement carefully crafted to eliminate indications of the assumptions and give the appearance of objectivity while in fact making it inevitable that any calculus depending upon that definition must lead to the foregone conclusion.

 

Brilliant! Self-deluding, mind you, but a brilliant example of logos run amok.

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.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Stosh

[Brian]

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.

Ah, but don't you see? The purpose of establishing a definition from a logical perspective is to provide an untainted basis upon which calculus can be built to prove some aspect of reality in a manner devoid of prejudicial influences. Closer examination reveals that human nature makes this impossible so the next approach is to attempt to fully clarify the complete set of assumptions and biases which contribute to or influence both the definitions and the application of logical operators. This, in a nontrivial case, becomes like Carrol's conversation between a tortoise and a certain Greek hero. To avoid this trap, we simply pretend we are objective and logical and find comfort in the "fact" that our conclusions overwhelmingly support our original beliefs -- or we return to the definition because it must have been "wrong."

 

My opinion?

 

My opinion is that you can reach agreement through rhetorical discourse but you cannot reach awareness -- that's experiential.

[Tibetan_Ice]

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.

Hi Stosh,

He did not walk away from it... Those excerpts are from a whole chapter called "Understanding Dukkha". He, Ajahn Chah, goes on to explain how happiness births suffering. Suffering is built right into happiness by virtue that anything born, due to impermanence, has to die.

He explains it like this:

Why are we suffering now? Because we were born. So we are taught to put an end to birth. This is not just talking about the body being born and the body dying. That much is easy to see. A child can understand it. The breath comes to an end, the body dies and then it just lies there. This is what we usually mean when we talk about death. But a breathing dead person? That’s something we don’t know about. A dead person who can walk and talk and smile is something we haven’t thought about. We only know about the corpse that’s no longer breathing. That’s what we call death.

 

It’s the same with birth. When we say someone has been born, we mean that a woman went to the hospital and gave birth. But the moment of the mind taking birth – have you noticed that, such as when you get upset over something at home? Sometimes love is born. Sometimes aversion is born. Being pleased, being displeased – all sorts of states. This is all nothing but birth.

 

We suffer just because of this. When the eyes see something displeasing, dukkha is born. When the ears hear something that you really like, dukkha is also born. There is only suffering.

 

The Buddha summed it up by saying that there is only a mass of suffering. Suffering is born and suffering ceases. That’s all there is. We pounce on and grab at it again and again – pouncing on arising, pouncing on cessation, never really understanding it.

 

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.

 

We don’t recognize clearly that there is only suffering, because when it stops we see happiness there. We seize on it and get stuck there. We don’t really see the truth that everything is just arising and ceasing.

 

The Buddha summed things up by saying that there is only arising and ceasing, and nothing outside of that. This is difficult to listen to. But one who truly has a feel for the Dhamma doesn’t need to take hold of anything and dwells in ease. That’s the truth.

 

The truth is that in this world of ours there is nothing that does anything to anybody. There is nothing to be anxious about. There’s nothing worth crying over, nothing to laugh at. Nothing is inherently tragic or delightful. But such experiencing is what’s ordinary for people.

 

Our speech can be ordinary; we relate to others according to the ordinary way of seeing things. That’s okay. But if we are thinking in the ordinary way, that leads to tears.

 

In truth, if we really know the Dhamma and see it continuously, nothing is anything at all; there is only arising and passing away. There’s no real happiness or suffering. The heart is at peace then, when there is no happiness or suffering. When there is happiness and suffering, there is becoming and birth.

 

We usually create one kind of kamma, which is the attempt to stop suffering and produce happiness. That’s what we want. But what we want is not real peace; it’s happiness and suffering. The aim of the Buddha’s teaching is to practice to create a type of kamma that leads beyond happiness and suffering and that will bring peace. But we aren’t able to think like that. We can only think that having happiness will bring us peace. If we have happiness, we think that’s good enough.

 

Thus we humans wish for things in abundance. If we get a lot, that’s good. Generally that’s how we think. Doing good is supposed to bring good results, and if we get that we’re happy. We think that’s all we need to do and we stop there. But where does good come to conclusion? It doesn’t remain. We keep going back and forth, experiencing good and bad, trying day and night to seize on to what we feel is good.

 

The Buddha’s teaching is that first we should give up evil and then we practice what is good. Second, he said that we should give up evil and give up the good as well, not having attachment to it because that is also one kind of fuel. When there is something that is fuel it will eventually burst into flame. Good is fuel. Bad is fuel.

 

Speaking on this level kills people. People aren’t able to follow it. So we have to turn back to the beginning and teach morality. Don’t harm each other. Be responsible in your work and don’t harm or exploit others. The Buddha taught this, but just this much isn’t enough to stop.

 

Why do we find ourselves here, in this condition? It’s because of birth. As the Buddha said in his first teaching, the Discourse on Turning the Wheel of Dhamma: “Birth is ended. This is my final existence. There is no further birth for the Tatha ̄gata.”

Not many people really come back to this point and contemplate to understand according to the principles of the Buddha’s way. But if we have faith in the Buddha’s way, it will repay us. If people genuinely rely on the Three Jewels then practice is easy.

 

Edited August 25, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

That's precisely what I think. Unless we can get the words directly from Buddah then everything is second hand. I wouldn't decry Buddhism or Taoism, but the words have been through so many heads it's hard to know what the essential philosophy was.

 

If it is hard to know what the original Buddhist philosophy was, as you've stated, then your statement that your definition of suffering fits nicely into Buddhism, is based on ignorance (in the conventional sense).

 

You said:

Suffering: A state of mental discontent in which desires conflict with reality.

 

That I think corks it. Values are desires and not 'needs' because of free will choice. It fits nicely with both Buddhist, Tau and existence from the perspective of objectivity. It's a bridge. Reduce desire to nothing and there is no suffering.

Edited by Karl, Yesterday, 09:01 PM.

 

 

 

[Karl]

Don't you understand yet, Karl, that I have no interest in playing logical games with you? Logic is a very powerful and useful tool when used appropriately and with explicit awareness of its limitations and dangers. Logic, however, (and regardless of whether we are talking Aristotelian term logic or propositional calculus or mathematical logic or Boolean algebra or whatever) only addresses a tiny sliver of reality, in the same way that traditional understandings of "matter" and "energy" only account for a fraction of "what which is" (see also -- "dark matter" and "dark energy").If you must have an alternate definition in order for my statement to be considered germane (although you have repeatedly stated that you reject out of hand any evidence or theories which conflict with your personal belief system so this is all really more for other readers than for you), consider this:Suffering is a state of emotional anguish caused by dwelling upon a source of physical or psychological discomfort.I just pulled that one out of thin air...

 

Isn't suffering psychological discomfort just another version of suffering ? Haven't you just said suffering is suffering ? I can see where you were going but all we would agree on was that suffering was some sort of emotional anguish/psychological discomfort/mental trauma which, we all seem to agree on.

 

I don't reject evidence, but I am at liberty to question theories just as you are. The difference is that it appears to annoy you that a lesser, more stupid mortal, without the requisite intelligence and education dares to argue with you. If I'm not prepared to read multiple volumes of hard physics then I'm considered by you to be an idiot amateur and should be ignored. Ie that what the Tao teaches ?

[Brian]

 

Isn't suffering psychological discomfort just another version of suffering ? Haven't you just said suffering is suffering ? I can see where you were going but all we would agree on was that suffering was some sort of emotional anguish/psychological discomfort/mental trauma which, we all seem to agree on. I don't reject evidence, but I am at liberty to question theories just as you are. The difference is that it appears to annoy you that a lesser, more stupid mortal, without the requisite intelligence and education dares to argue with you. If I'm not prepared to read multiple volumes of hard physics then I'm considered by you to be an idiot amateur and should be ignored. Ie that what the Tao teaches ?

Heavens no, Karl! I think you are quite bright and articulate or I wouldn't bother to offer you clues and tidbits that took me decades to realize. As it stands, however, your "arguments" are decidedly one-dimensional and your persistent clinging to your intellectual attachments makes the effort largely futile -- that, for me, is the lesson learned.

[Stosh]

Ah, but don't you see? The purpose of establishing a definition from a logical perspective is to provide an untainted basis upon which calculus can be built to prove some aspect of reality in a manner devoid of prejudicial influences. Closer examination reveals that human nature makes this impossible so the next approach is to attempt to fully clarify the complete set of assumptions and biases which contribute to or influence both the definitions and the application of logical operators. This, in a nontrivial case, becomes like Carrol's conversation between a tortoise and a certain Greek hero. To avoid this trap, we simply pretend we are objective and logical and find comfort in the "fact" that our conclusions overwhelmingly support our original beliefs -- or we return to the definition because it must have been "wrong."

 

My opinion?

 

My opinion is that you can reach agreement through rhetorical discourse but you cannot reach awareness -- that's experiential.

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. 

Edited August 25, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

 .......awareness is a  fine subject , for another thread perhaps. 

Yep.  For another thread.

[Karl]

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. 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. 

 

That's how I see it, but it seems this is considered a pointless exercise because....well I don't really know ?...cleverer people tell us not to bother because we are confirming our own bias.

 

"Don't go playing on the grass"

"Why?"

"If you have to ask then you shouldn't be playing on the grass"

 

That seems to be what I hear ?

[Marblehead]

Don't go playing on the grass because there is a sing just over there that reads "Keep off the grass".

 

I haven't seen a sign yet.  Play as you will.

[Brian]

I'd say it is more like:

"Don't stress over the rules, just play on the grass."

"No, the rules are all that matter and, besides, you haven't defined 'grass' to my satisfaction yet."

"If you say so..." <shrug-and-play-on-grass-anyhow>