Fear is the root of All suffering

[Karl]

If a sceptic has a premonition, he does not find it hard to say 'it was just coincidence' or 'I am simply imagining in this moment T+2 that there was a thought at T = 0 predictive of the event at T+1'.

 

Likewise, the mystic does not find it hard to convince themselves of all sorts of clairvoyant genius.  They can be so dogmatic that they never stop to think that they might be rewriting history.

 

Have you never noticed a similarity between these two types?

 

An unrelated premonition you mean ? If I'm about to go on holiday and I dream I shall be boarding a plane with some hand luggage then it's impossible to claim some degree of foreknowledge had not helped towards the premonition. It's possible to analyse similar events through the light of pre knowledge.

 

We all create history. We are all at cause and effect. As Einstein said, there is no past, present and future, it's an illusion. It's a continuous movement of objects through time.

 

I think you might be alluding to the thing I have talked about previously. An atheist is someone who does not 'believe' God exists, a religious person is someone who believes God does exist. I observe that similarity.

[Nikolai1]

An unrelated premonition you mean ? If I'm about to go on holiday and I dream I shall be boarding a plane with some hand luggage then it's impossible to claim some degree of foreknowledge had not helped towards the premonition. It's possible to analyse similar events through the light of pre knowledge. 

I was thinking more of a prediction of something that could not be known through convntional means.  Like your brother claimed to have.  But perhaps you think I'm asking a false question because true premonitions that your brother claimed don't exist?

[Karl]

I was thinking more of a prediction of something that could not be known through convntional means.  Like your brother claimed to have.  But perhaps you think I'm asking a false question because true premonitions that your brother claimed don't exist?

 

I don't claim to know what may exist, only as far as my rational experience allows me to know the current existing facts. My brother knew the property was empty, it was in a poor area and houses were often boarded up because of vandalism. My Dad was in the process of turning the property into an office. He had not paid attention to the quality of the locks and security-our own home had recently been broken into whilst we were on holiday for precisely the same reason. It's not impossible then to make a prediction based on possibility.

 

If we could accurately predict the future then what ? The future is continuously evolving. Make a prediction and the future may alter completely as now every action will be based on the prediction. It's just completely crazy. We have the present and murky, unreliable memories of past events on which we base decisions.

 

So, logic tells me that we cannot predict the future otherwise we would change the future. We would be saying we controlled the universe in all its aspects. I know you have some belief in that direction.

[Nikolai1]

I don't claim to know what may exist, only as far as my rational experience allows me to know the current existing facts.

But like you've said, your rationality only allows you to know what your rationality will let you know.

 

If something happens and you have a strange uncanny feeling about it, like you dreamt of it the day before.  Your mind will simply interpret the feeling according to its own ways:

 

1) The mystic has no doubt that they have been clairvoyant.

2) The rationalist has no doubt that it is either a coincidence, or that the dream never happened - it is a confabulation.

 

My question still is, do you not see the resemblance here? You likened them each to a kind of faith - like the relative faiths of the atheist and the theist.  Can you imagine a way of life that avoids this kind of faith?

[Karl]

But like you've said, your rationality only allows you to know what your rationality will let you know.

 

If something happens and you have a strange uncanny feeling about it, like you dreamt of it the day before.  Your mind will simply interpret the feeling according to its own ways:

 

1) The mystic has no doubt that they have been clairvoyant.

2) The rationalist has no doubt that it is either a coincidence, or that the dream never happened - it is a confabulation.

 

My question still is, do you not see the resemblance here? You likened them each to a kind of faith - like the relative faiths of the atheist and the theist.  Can you imagine a way of life that avoids this kind of faith?

 

I've already said it. I'm not concerned about the 'feeling'. I accept that this feeling is real. Then nothing. The moment is passed and time moves on. Im no longer aware of the feeling having any significance. I have neither denied the feeling or accepted the feeling as true.

 

So, for the Atheist they should find if God does not exists and not simply believe that a God does not exist. The Deist, by comparison knows and accepts that the belief is one of mystic faith. The second is honest. The Atheist deceives himself.

[Brian]

<snip>

So, logic tells me that we cannot predict the future otherwise we would change the future.

<snip>

This requires a belief in predetermination. It is more accurate to say that the future is shaped by the past, is formed by decisions and actions.

[Karl]

This requires a belief in predetermination. It is more accurate to say that the future is shaped by the past, is formed by decisions and actions.

 

I'd go along with that.

[Marblehead]

 

Enlightenment is meaningless and hopeless. You're totally fucked. Welcome to freedom.

That caused me a chuckle.  Thanks.

[Karl]

That caused me a chuckle.  Thanks.

 

And me, but there was far too much to answer to add a chuckle.

[Nikolai1]

I've already said it. I'm not concerned about the 'feeling'. I accept that this feeling is real. Then nothing. The moment is passed and time moves on. 

This isn't true.  You don't do this, although it is hopeful that you like to think you do.  If you were truly doing this, you wouldn't bother with all the deconstruction.  Like you said:

 

I give them breathing room and examine them fully. They wither and die if they cannot stand the light of reason. 

Your whole mien is of a person working according to a worldview.  What you call logical is actually conventional scientifc understanding.  If your experience fits with this modern understanding you accept it, if it doesn't you disregard it as illusion. Don't you?

[Karl]

This isn't true.  You don't do this, although it is hopeful that you like to think you do.  If you were truly doing this, you wouldn't bother with all the deconstruction.  Like you said:

 

 

Your whole mien is of a person working according to a worldview.  What you call logical is actually conventional scientifc understanding.  If your experience fits with this modern understanding you accept it, if it doesn't you disregard it as illusion. Don't you?

 

I don't pass it through logic unless it's a thought and not simply a feeling. It might be that a feeling may inspire me to dig a bit deeper to see what might be behind it, just depends.

 

Scientific understanding may or may not be included, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reasoning. I don't need science to explain hunger or thirst. Science doesn't explain why I choose one thing over another, it can only show that I act in accordance with inbuilt values.

 

As I said I think you are getting confused with what logic is for. You are concerned with the mystical and you imagine logic is out to prove you are wrong, but that isn't how it is used. I'm not trying to define science, only the concepts which are concerned with the structure of an argument.

 

"What did that man just tell me, is it valid" ?

"Am I correct in validating and integrating these two pieces of information".

 

I'm using logic and reason to determine if the concepts and arguments conform to the facts as they are. They might be scientific data, they may simply be philosophical premises.

 

You tell me there are ghosts and I see no reason for their existence. ie dead people without bodies. If you pointed to the sky and said you see the shape of a cloud and you think it looks ghostly, or you describe something as seemingly ghostly then I understand what you mean. It's even possible to apply this to stories. It's true that Santa has a beard and elves etc in the story, it is not true that there is a real existing Santa with elves living on the North Pole.

 

 

 

 

[Wu Ming Jen]

It is true that geek philosophy was polar complete before socrates then the battle for world view began. Lao Tzu was the alternative to an absolute and fragment view of the world.

Aristotle on his death bed renounced his teachings as false. Purely philosophically the greek philosophy  is a philosophical blunder that is designed to wear out with friction because of things in opposition instead of harmony, it simple.

[Wu Ming Jen]

Feeling of emotion or feeling of being? the divine is right now not separate from ourselves, not from another world, false teachings that depart from ultimate reality will never stand the test of time.

[Orion]

"The root of all suffering is trying" That's a bold and simple statement. What about succeeding or failing ? There is no control that is true, but free will always exists. That is the basis for morality, if everything is pre determined then choice is an illusion, therefore there are no consequences and no cause and effect. You can take a stab at compartmentalising, but I agree that it is ultimately a pointless exercise beyond trying to communicate the experience. There isn't a doer, we are that.

 

At the ultimate level, morality is non-sense. Anything that's happening is just what's happening. It's not about free will or determinism. It means there's no you in what's happening, even if you are seemingly making a choice about it.

 

As far as I can tell, spiritually moral structures exist to try and guide the person toward the ultimate, which is, of course, already present at all times. But they tend to get too wrapped up in control and abdication of present awareness. In the end though, anything that causes you to point back toward ego, is a myth... including morals. They're just false narratives. There's nothing for karma or virtue to attach to. Nothing really matters. It's all just the one, doing itself.

 

That's why I say that trying is the root of all suffering. What are you trying to do? Where do you think you're going? There's nowhere to go, there's no spiritual ladder, there's no "over there". It's all happening right now, in this moment. This is your enlightened life and it doesn't get any better than this. You're totally fucked... welcome to freedom. And the best part is, it's the DOING that makes you oblivious to it. Paradoxically, it requires you to do nothing to get it.

 

And even if you do get it, it doesn't mean the end of suffering. It just means you relax into the suffering, because you're not the one doing it. It's happening all on its own.

 

I don't know how else to explain it.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Orion

[de_paradise]

The non-discriminatory mind is the enlightened mind, that is the mind which does not see one moment or state or outcome better than the other. Whereas the discriminatory mind makes comparisons, it thinks that if I go do some action I will be better off. That is why people try, because they think they will be better off. People fear because they start to predict they will be worse off. So the discriminatory mind is the root.

 

"What are you trying to do? Where do you think you're going? There's nowhere to go, there's no spiritual ladder, there's no "over there". It's all happening right now, in this moment. This is your enlightened life and it doesn't get any better than this. You're totally fucked... welcome to freedom. And the best part is, it's the DOING that makes you oblivious to it. Paradoxically, it requires you to do nothing to get it."

 

To reach the enlightened mind is not obvious from the point of view of the discriminatory mind, or its biproduct, the rationally thinking mind because it will find many arguements why discrimination is necessary. And yet to float up above the regular mind (as if carrying helium many helium balloons)  is the only way to see why the cause of all our suffering is this discriminatory mind and to understand that a new equalibrium is possible.

[Karl]

The non-discriminatory mind is the enlightened mind, that is the mind which does not see one moment or state or outcome better than the other. Whereas the discriminatory mind makes comparisons, it thinks that if I go do some action I will be better off. That is why people try, because they think they will be better off. People fear because they start to predict they will be worse off. So the discriminatory mind is the root.

 

"What are you trying to do? Where do you think you're going? There's nowhere to go, there's no spiritual ladder, there's no "over there". It's all happening right now, in this moment. This is your enlightened life and it doesn't get any better than this. You're totally fucked... welcome to freedom. And the best part is, it's the DOING that makes you oblivious to it. Paradoxically, it requires you to do nothing to get it."

 

To reach the enlightened mind is not obvious from the point of view of the discriminatory mind, or its biproduct, the rationally thinking mind because it will find many arguements why discrimination is necessary. And yet to float up above the regular mind (as if carrying helium many helium balloons)  is the only way to see why the cause of all our suffering is this discriminatory mind and to understand that a new equalibrium is possible.

 

To some extent. However, all action is predicated on moving from a state of less satisfaction to one which offers more satisfaction. To put it bluntly, without that mechanism we would just sit there and die.

 

It is the mind that thinks, right/wrong, stop/go, good/bad, punishment/reward which has been created in an unnatural state. We have free will which gives us moral guidance, but it has been truncated and it's allegiance moved to support a political/economic/education system in which the state is the arbiter of all morality freeing us from the need to think. It is the state which says what is right and wrong, good/bad, stop/go and the state which punishes or rewards. We no longer think for ourselves in the way we once did and are suffering for it.

 

 

[Marblehead]

 

I don't know how else to explain it.

Well, it was an interesting read.

[Marblehead]

...   the cause of all our suffering is this discriminatory mind ...

If asked, I would likely have to agree with this.

 

But I will suggest that it is a most difficult task to attain to the alternative, a non-discriminating mind.

 

Yes, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both speak of such a state.  Did even they attain it?  I don't know.

[Stosh]

Suffering is the root of all fear. The discriminating mind is an attempt to prevent or assuage suffering.

[3bob]

after a mountain of work has been done, there is a moment of rest and awe at its peak... those who misinterpret non-ado as "do nothing" are not bodily carried up that mountain for we must make the effort ourselves, although a helpful hand may be lent here and there on the way

[AussieTrees]

Self created suffering is based on fear or anxiety.

 

Anxiety is the modern manifestation,and we all manage our own levels,for some it is uncontrolled.

 

We smoke that good joint,then all manner of suspiciousness may arise or paranoia,this is an anxious state.

 

Keeping in mind anxiety has two aspects,physical and psychological.

 

Insight is really the only key to alleviate these anxious states,otherwise we continue this self torment.

 

When you see that shark fin heading your way,and you are still 3or4 hundred metres from shore,this realisation may induce fear,or after surviving such an event,next surf trip similar senario occurs,this is fear and anxiety,ie stay safe Mick Fanning.

 

There is a lot to learn of ourselves.

 

From personal experience,just stop reading news papers,or seeking news broadcasts.

Refrain from illegal activity as best you can.

Develope an honest and genuine approach.

Reduce or eliminate your 'control'of others within personal contacts.

If using mind altering substance,just sit tight the effects will wear off.

Paranoia is usually associated with grandiosity,humility can be an antidote.

When you perceive a situation as anxiety provoking situation,establish a mode of inquiry of yourself.

 

The list goes on,fear more related to shark fin senario.

Anxiety is what we all subjectively experience more frequently.

[Stosh]

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.

[Karl]

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.

 

Do you suffer ? Or do you simply, intensely dislike of feeling too warm, unpleasant, uncomfortable, suffocated ? It is possible then to fear something but not suffer.

 

[Stosh]

 

Do you suffer ? Or do you simply, intensely dislike of feeling too warm, unpleasant, uncomfortable, suffocated ? It is possible then to fear something but not suffer.

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? Edited August 22, 2015 by Stosh

[Karl]

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?

 

Yes, the distinction is subtle but all things are connected to the same thing. Everything is causality. So you notice certain...symptoms I suppose you might say. You wouldn't know suffering if you didn't have the concept 'to suffer'. Yet, have you ever defined the concept ? Look at every bit of assumed information that you carelessly impinge on your conscious awareness. Is suffering the same as pain ? Do you really 'suffer' pain, or is it just pain? Make that distinction.