Fear is the root of All suffering

[Stosh]

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. 

[Marblehead]

But Stosh, if you aren't miserable all the time you won't be buying any self-help books.

 

So if I wanted to sell self-help books I would first try to cause you to think you are miserable so that you would have motivation to buy my books.

[Karl]

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. 

 

Me neither.

It also sounds bloody impossible.

I don't go chasing material things to bring me happiness because I discovered years ago that they dont(that's not to say I don't like some of the things), but I do things (actions)that bring me happiness. When I do things that don't bring me happiness I conclude I'm doing something against my values and should stop doing that action. Makes life very simple. I got immense unhappiness from following spiritual practices, I concluded they weren't the right solution. Now I go with the flow as much as any normal person can.

[Karl]

But Stosh, if you aren't miserable all the time you won't be buying any self-help books.

 

So if I wanted to sell self-help books I would first try to cause you to think you are miserable so that you would have motivation to buy my books.

 

Can I buy one of your books Mr Marblehead. I need a lot of help from my self. :-)

[Brian]

But Stosh, if you aren't miserable all the time you won't be buying any self-help books.

 

So if I wanted to sell self-help books I would first try to cause you to think you are miserable so that you would have motivation to buy my books.

Half price, this week only!

[dwai]

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. 

Someone had already pointed out that duality causes us to ascribe values to things. For in a dualistic framework, one can be known only in context of the other. To use a Buddhist (*shudders!*) term - Pratitya Samutpaada (or depending co-rising). Something is only known in terms of it's opposite. For happiness to exist, there needs to be the opposite of it (unhappiness). 

 

But I still say Fear is the root of suffering because suffering happens as a result of clinging to one over another. But this clinging is rooted in fear of the opposite, or of losing the opposite. Fear can be many things...but at it's core it is an aversion to suffering. So in essence, we suffer because we strive to not suffer, imho.

[Brian]

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 already offered one proposal in this thread but I'll toss out another:

Suffering is an emotional manifestation of mental obsession with the cognitive dissonance which results from mistaking dualism for the Tao.

[allinone]

Aging is suffering. Its like very slow falling off from a cliff.

 

Not needed to feel suffering to know there is suffering. Its also by using logic that there is suffering. Idle suffering or potential.

 

knowing that we going to die, then logical option is letting go of living for getting permanent results. Logical is that we don't feel regrets to give away whatever we have.

 

Death can come any moment. Having dreams and desires, is not logical therefore.

Edited August 25, 2015 by allinone

[Stosh]

I already offered one proposal in this thread but I'll toss out another:

Suffering is an emotional manifestation of mental obsession with the cognitive dissonance which results from mistaking dualism for the Tao.

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

[Stosh]

Someone had already pointed out that duality causes us to ascribe values to things. For in a dualistic framework, one can be known only in context of the other. To use a Buddhist (*shudders!*) term - Pratitya Samutpaada (or depending co-rising). Something is only known in terms of it's opposite. For happiness to exist, there needs to be the opposite of it (unhappiness). 

 

But I still say Fear is the root of suffering because suffering happens as a result of clinging to one over another. But this clinging is rooted in fear of the opposite, or of losing the opposite. Fear can be many things...but at it's core it is an aversion to suffering. So in essence, we suffer because we strive to not suffer, imho.

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  .... 

[Stosh]

Me neither. It also sounds bloody impossible. I don't go chasing material things to bring me happiness because I discovered years ago that they dont(that's not to say I don't like some of the things), but I do things (actions)that bring me happiness. When I do things that don't bring me happiness I conclude I'm doing something against my values and should stop doing that action. Makes life very simple. I got immense unhappiness from following spiritual practices, I concluded they weren't the right solution. Now I go with the flow as much as any normal person can.

What could be more spiritual than that? 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Karl,

You've said a few times now that spirituality made you crazy. What happened to you? Did you write about your experiences anywhere?

[Brian]

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

Judged?!?

 

Ummm...

 

By whom and for what purposes?

[Karl]

What could be more spiritual than that? 

 

Indeed Stosh.

[Karl]

Karl,

You've said a few times now that spirituality made you crazy. What happened to you? Did you write about your experiences anywhere?

 

It didn't seem like craziness at the time.

[Tibetan_Ice]

It didn't seem like craziness at the time.

That's all you're going to say about it?

[Karl]

That's all you're going to say about it?

 

Yes.

[Stosh]

Judged?!?

 

Ummm...

 

By whom and for what purposes?

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 . 

[Stosh]

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 ?

In making the definition you chose, did you not examine to see how it held up against real world phenomena? If you did , you were seeking the truth of this little snip of the human condition... and in doing thus, you weren't creating a bias you already had, you were challenging it.  If it stood up , great! if it modified the degree to which you understand , or apply , or your level of conviction , that's great too.  There's really no downside. 

Buddha is reputed to have suggested that folks examine , that they not take things as handed down, even his own teachings ,,, ESpecially his own teachings. ( and none of you need me to explain why) 

[Karl]

In making the definition you chose, did you not examine to see how it held up against real world phenomena? If you did , you were seeking the truth of this little snip of the human condition... and in doing thus, you weren't creating a bias you already had, you were challenging it.  If it stood up , great! if it modified the degree to which you understand , or apply , or your level of conviction , that's great too.  There's really no downside. 

Buddha is reputed to have suggested that folks examine , that they not take things as handed down, even his own teachings ,,, ESpecially his own teachings. ( and none of you need me to explain why) 

 

Yes, that how it seemed to me from personal experience. I asked my wife to see if it resonated with her. I think I'm always challenging my own bias. I actually woke up early morning with a definition that radically altered my earlier definition (which I had struggled to reconcile)-so yes, it seemed to me I had already moved position. I laid it open for others to comment from their experiences. That's about all that is possible other than chopping off my head and grafting on a spare.

[Stosh]

Yes, that how it seemed to me from personal experience. I asked my wife to see if it resonated with her. I think I'm always challenging my own bias. I actually woke up early morning with a definition that radically altered my earlier definition (which I had struggled to reconcile)-so yes, it seemed to me I had already moved position. I laid it open for others to comment from their experiences. That's about all that is possible other than chopping off my head and grafting on a spare.

The one you have is just fine, keep it.

[Marblehead]

 

Suffering is an emotional manifestation of mental obsession with the cognitive dissonance which results from mistaking dualism for the Tao.

Please keep your responses to four-letter or less words?

 

And besides, dualism is an aspect of Tao.

[Bud Jetsun]

There is no objective condition that evokes suffering on a being, aside from the being choosing to believe they are experiencing suffering, and then override perception of Now with this inherently self-imposed delusion. 

 

Humans are taught to suffer, and impose it upon themselves to whatever extent they choose, completely irregardless of outside conditions.  Someones "worst day" is someone else's ultimate dream fantasy life day, the difference is in the choice of perception. 

 

Suffering concludes in proportion to ones realization of mindfulness and compassion.  Complete mindfulness, complete compassion (which is inherently a fearless state) can not suffer.  

 

Humans don't need some amazing new process or technology or some profound wisdom to not suffer.  Just stopping choosing to suffer ones own delusions, and instead embracing perception of Now is more than adequate. 

 

Not suffering, and choosing to experience unbreakable peace doesn't require any outside resources or help, or even waiting until tomorrow.  It is a gift you can give yourself through realization of mindfulness Now.  These are the first low hanging fruits to pick to begin a path towards self-awareness and then awareness. 

 

Think less of finding a specific practice or teacher or book of wisdom, and more about removing the delusions you were choosing to replace perception of Now.

 

Nirvana is already inside you waiting to be perceived, it only costs laying down your burdens of delusions to accept the gift that was always there waiting for you. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Marblehead]

That's all you're going to say about it?

Yes.

Apparently some things are better left unsaid.

[Marblehead]

... other than chopping off my head and grafting on a spare.

Better, I think, to chop wood and carry water.