The Two Arrows of Suffering

[dwai]

It is acknowledged that suffering happens. But there are two causes of suffering (please refer to Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures on this topic). It is as if we've been hit by an arrow, it has pierced our body, and we are dealing with the pain when the second arrow hits, amplifying and exacerbating our suffering.

 

The first arrow is what life throws at us - it is not in our control for the most part - a lot of it has to deal with acquired karma. The second arrow is our reaction to it - the stories we make up, victimhood mentality, replaying the impact and fallout from the first arrow. The second arrow is more deadly and usually contributes to 80% of our suffering. If we can figure out how to resolve the source of this second arrow, suffering in life will be dramatically reduced. 

 

[old3bob]

 

does anyone say how karma or the first of karma came around,  with us human beings obviously not being the first to come around in the cosmic cycles....

[dwai]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

does anyone say how karma or the first of karma came around,  with us human beings obviously not being the first to come around in the cosmic cycles....

 

[old3bob]

thanks for that although I was hoping for a shorter paraphrase in text since my hearing is so bad that I can only make out parts of what he said;  also I'm not into his school although there are many things in common across various schools of "Hinduism" 

[stirling]

As I mentioned in another thread, this "second arrow" is the primary promise of Buddhism - the reduction of suffering.

 

Having an introduction to the nature of mind/Rigpa/emptiness, a regular meditation practice, and some help with realizing how our thoughts transform bare experience into this deeper suffering are key. 

 

22 hours ago, old3bob said:

does anyone say how karma or the first of karma came around,  with us human beings obviously not being the first to come around in the cosmic cycles....

 

Karma is beginning-less, where time is illusory. Karma always arises from your story about how things are in this moment. When the story stops, so does the karma, which is the point of having a meditation practice where the mind is trained to be equanimous and still.

[old3bob]

4 minutes ago, stirling said:

As I mentioned in another thread, this "second arrow" is the primary promise of Buddhism - the reduction of suffering.

 

Having an introduction to the nature of mind/Rigpa/emptiness, a regular meditation practice, and some help with realizing how our thoughts transform bare experience into this deeper suffering are key. 

 

 

Karma is beginning-less, where time is illusory. Karma always arises from your story about how things are in this moment. When the story stops, so does the karma, which is the point of having a meditation practice where the mind is trained to be equanimous and still.

 

not bad dude    but to me that is only half the "story" since the cosmic cycles never stop and are not really illusory (a key misunderstanding) but samsara that needs to be properly understood...  

[old3bob]

btw, I like the saying about two thorns: quoted below

 

"For example, to remove a thorn in your finger you use another thorn; then you throw both of them away. But if you keep the second thorn which was used to remove the first one, you’ll surely be stuck again. To remove ignorance, knowledge is necessary, but finally both must dissolve into Reality. Your Self is without ignorance, without knowledge"...  

(although I'd add that It knows it Self otherwise all would be the vanity of vanities!)

Edited August 10 by old3bob

[stirling]

Some questions:

 

If "cosmic cycles" never stop, when do they begin?

 

How would you define one, if they don't begin or end?

 

Can you show me the "cosmic cycles", or are they a conceptual structure of the mind?

 

When the mind is quiet and empty do you experience "cosmic cycles"?

 

What is it that you need to understand about samsara? 

[old3bob]

being that I think you've said that you've looked at the Upanishads, maybe look again in the Chandogya where it says Prana springs from the Self for there is no stopping of that springing forth that is rock solidly linked to the Self and neither is an illusion,   (or if one prefers "The Tao goes far and returns" to parapharse)

[dwai]

51 minutes ago, stirling said:

Karma is beginning-less, where time is illusory. Karma always arises from your story about how things are in this moment. When the story stops, so does the karma, which is the point of having a meditation practice where the mind is trained to be equanimous and still.

This! 
To ask why did karma start is like asking “when did your not-knowing how to speak Swahili begin?” (For non-Swahili speakers)

 

Ignorance is beginning-less - but with knowledge it ends. Same way, karma is beginning-less  (because karma and ignorance are two sides of the same coin). It ends when ignorance ends.  
 

If you watch the video I shared, swami points to this. Karma only exists in transactional reality, which is ultimately unreal. 

 

[stirling]

46 minutes ago, old3bob said:

being that I think you've said that you've looked at the Upanishads, maybe look again in the Chandogya where it says Prana springs from the Self for there is no stopping of that springing forth that is rock solidly linked to the Self and neither is an illusion,   (or if one prefers "The Tao goes far and returns" to parapharse)

 

Just so we have some context and attribution:

 

Quote

92. The Infinite is Bliss. There is no bliss in anything finite.

93. Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else that is the Infinite.

94. Where, however, one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else that is the finite.

95. That which is Infinite is Immortal. That which is finite is mortal.

96. The Infinite is indeed below, above, behind, before, to the right, and to the left. It is indeed all this.

97. He who sees thus, thinks thus, and understands thus, loves the Self, delights in the Self, enjoys the company of the Self. and rejoices in the Self; he becomes the Svarat (Self-king); he becomes independent in all the worlds.

98. But those who know otherwise, are ruled by others and live in perishable worlds; and they become dependent in all the worlds.

99. For one who sees thus, thinks thus and understands thus, Prana springs from the Self; hope springs from the Self; memory springs from the Self; so do Akasa, fire, water, etc. Everything springs from the Self for him.

100. He who sees thus, sees not death, nor disease nor pain; he who sees thus, sees everything, and obtains everything, everywhere.

101. When food is pure, the inner nature becomes purified. When the inner nature has been purified, the memory becomes firm. And when the memory of the Highest Self remains firm, then all the ties which bind man to belief in anything (but the Atman) are loosened.
 

- Chhandogya Upanishad

 

The word "Self" in this context points to enlightenment... "the infinite" (see my bold above). Where one sees the unity of the "Self" everywhere, that is the "Inifinite"

 

The lines:

 

Quote

93. Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else that is the Infinite.

94. Where, however, one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else that is the finite.

 

Point toward the fact that the infinite (Self) sees no beginning, no end, no cycles... nothing finite, or we might say no "duality". Nothing with self-existence as something separate. This is how a "Self" becomes "independent in all worlds".

 

Line 99. (what you were paraphrasing):

 

Quote

99. For one who sees thus, thinks thus and understands thus, Prana springs from the Self; hope springs from the Self; memory springs from the Self; so do Akasa, fire, water, etc. Everything springs from the Self for him.

 

...points at how the relative springs from the absolute - how all of the finite appearances are manifestations of the infinite... they dance together... just like the Heart Sutra, actually. 

 

Reminds me of:

 

Quote

There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance... neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death； no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path； no knowledge and no attainment. - Buddha, Heart Sutra

 

The relative world and the emptiness visible at the same time. 

 

Quote

And when the memory of the Highest Self remains firm, then all the ties which bind man to belief in anything (but the Atman) are loosened.

 

Cycles and samsara are beliefs.... they are stories we tell ourselves about how the relative world works, but "Highest Self" see through all of those beliefs, realizing that only Atman is real. 

[old3bob]

all of that and you still seem to miss the point that there is no separation of the Self and the springing forth of Prana....

 

Some schools of Hinduism apparently miss that point also?  Anyway and since there is no separation between The Self and Prana then there is really no separation in "Reality" (except and only in the limited eye of a particular beholder)

 

"99. For one who sees thus, thinks thus and understands thus, Prana springs from the Self; hope springs from the Self; memory springs from the Self; so do Akasa, fire, water, etc. Everything springs from the Self for him".

Edited August 10 by old3bob

[old3bob]

there is "Satchitanada" of purest Prana/Joy which is indestructible and connected to the Self,  Btw, not all schools or teachers of Hinduism agree with this and may say Satchitanada is the Self even though the Self is beyond all categories even and including the first and purest of Prana or Satchitanada. (which is connected) 

Edited August 10 by old3bob

[stirling]

4 hours ago, old3bob said:

all of that and you still seem to miss the point that there is no separation of the Self and the springing forth of Prana....

 

Some schools of Hinduism apparently miss that point also?  Anyway and since there is no separation between The Self and Prana then there is really no separation in "Reality" (except and only in the limited eye of a particular beholder)

 

"99. For one who sees thus, thinks thus and understands thus, Prana springs from the Self; hope springs from the Self; memory springs from the Self; so do Akasa, fire, water, etc. Everything springs from the Self for him".

 

In the presence of this moment is it entirely clear to me that there is no separation of anything whatsoever and never has been or even could be.

 

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

there is "Satchitanada" of purest Prana/Joy which is indestructible and connected to the Self,  Btw, not all schools or teachers of Hinduism agree with this and may say Satchitanada is the Self even though the Self is beyond all categories even and including the first and purest of Prana or Satchitanada. (which is connected) 

 

I am not intimately familiar with the different schools of Hinduism, but I guarantee that anyone looking from the perspective of "Self" will find it impossible to separate the arising from what it might appear to arise "from". IMHO these are conceptual distinctions which have nothing to do with reality.

 

BTW, Buddhism has a similar issue around a different point with the schools of Yogachara, Prasingingka, and Shentong, but really it is just a waste of time - none of them are ultimately correct being that they are entirely conceptual constructs, and the emptiness itself is not describable in language.

 

Quote

“The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom.” - Hui Hai

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

I am not intimately familiar with the different schools of Hinduism, but I guarantee that anyone looking from the perspective of "Self" will find it impossible to separate the arising from what it might appear to arise "from". IMHO these are conceptual distinctions which have nothing to do with reality.

The dualistic schools within Hinduism don’t accept that the Individual self and Brahman are non-dual.  So, it is moot to discuss with them the two-reality model. 
 

The karma, transmigration, etc story is for them.

[old3bob]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

In the presence of this moment is it entirely clear to me that there is no separation of anything whatsoever and never has been or even could be.

 

 

I am not intimately familiar with the different schools of Hinduism, but I guarantee that anyone looking from the perspective of "Self" will find it impossible to separate the arising from what it might appear to arise "from". IMHO these are conceptual distinctions which have nothing to do with reality.

 

BTW, Buddhism has a similar issue around a different point with the schools of Yogachara, Prasingingka, and Shentong, but really it is just a waste of time - none of them are ultimately correct being that they are entirely conceptual constructs, and the emptiness itself is not describable in language.

 

well part of that sounds rather dismissive when a textual pointer or a fine teacher could be pointing as well as a pointer can point.  

 

are you then willing to say that illusion (and harping on it) is an illusion, although some make it sound like there is real illusion...

Edited August 11 by old3bob

[doc benway]

12 hours ago, dwai said:

Ignorance is beginning-less - but with knowledge it ends. Same way, karma is beginning-less  (because karma and ignorance are two sides of the same coin). It ends when ignorance ends.

 

What about the logical idea that anything with an end must have a beginning?

 

Dzogchen teaches that Ignorance begins when we separate from Nature and ends when we return, in each and every moment!

 

Nature has no beginning or end, and embraces ignorance and knowledge alike. Ignorance (ma-rigpa) and Knowledge (rigpa) can arise and depart unpredictably in our lives. Few yogis have perfect and continuous clarity and attention. Those that do may achieve jalus at death.

 

Though there is a discrete and tangible shift, when I really look at that it is related to memory and experience, now vs then,  so that is not it….

 

… release, rest…

 

… continue.

[old3bob]

 

I'd say knowledge as we know it is also a thing and can not pass into no-thing,  Karma does not end for a particular being until that particular being has 'returned' and is no longer identified in that way but as the Self... Prana is not a concept and is the power in all forms, forms are not illusions per-se except in the eye of a particular beholder that does not see that Prana powers them and That which powers Prana in its springing forth, as spoken of.. 

Edited August 11 by old3bob

[dwai]

15 hours ago, steve said:

 

What about the logical idea that anything with an end must have a beginning?

Illusion/ignorance doesn’t have a beginning because it doesn’t *really* exist. In the Advaita Vedanta system it is given the status of neither exists nor not exists. Because it seems like it exists, but once realization occurs it becomes apparent that it didn’t really exist, as Self Nature was never really not there. 

[doc benway]

We call that thiglè nyagcig - single drop, referring to wholeness, non-duality. But for me, as a practitioner, I have to say ignorance is very real, as real as realization. I say that because both are present in my experience from time to time. To say either did not really exist would not be an accurate account of my experience. So I would go with can’t really say it does exist, doesn’t, both, neither… but easier and more direct for me to release, rest, and continue….

[old3bob]

"....can’t really say it does exist, doesn’t, both, neither… " (from Steve)

 

 That sounds a lot like the four-fold negation?  

Which to me is the intellect recognizing its limits which I'd say is important.

 

 

[old3bob]

 

Btw, and again Buddhism uses the term "mind"  as if it were Spirit but to me it is a thing,  a computer like thing which is or can be a very great tool which is the realization that Spirit has of it.   So an "awakened" mind or well working  computer is fine but it can not go beyond itself being that it is a thing.

Edited August 12 by old3bob

[stirling]

On 8/12/2024 at 3:59 AM, old3bob said:

Btw, and again Buddhism uses the term "mind"  as if it were Spirit but to me it is a thing,  a computer like thing which is or can be a very great tool which is the realization that Spirit has of it.   So an "awakened" mind or well working  computer is fine but it can not go beyond itself being that it is a thing.

 

Agreed! There is nothing to go beyond, surpass or transcend. This reality is already enlightened, eternally. What terminology one chooses never represents that clearly.

 

The term "Mind" does get used in a number of ways. In some traditions (M)ind (large M) is the same as emptiness (or "enlightened mind"). In many (m)ind (small "m") is used to denote the dualistic thinking mind. Spirit isn't a concept I think of where Buddhism is involved. 

 

Ultimately the thinking mind is considered as only one of the ayatana, or "sense doors", which include:

 

• Sight
• Hearing
• Smell
• Taste
• Touch

 

and

 

• Mind

 

Unlike the way we consider mind in the Western world, thoughts are not exalted to some special status of deep meaning or importance. Ultimately they don't point to anything completely real. (m)ind in this sense is merely another sensory input which, if allowed to arise in consciousness and pass through without a secondary thought process, doesn't cause suffering. 

 

The "awakened" mind sees all arising phenomena as happening in the phenomenal world and not belonging to "self". Thoughts are just thoughts, not contrived or misinterpreted into a false sense of "I".

 

Really, "awakened mind", or "sense doors", or any other convention you could imagine would be yet another duality. The terms are a subject-object convenience to discuss these things. Really, as I allude to above, from the clearest perspective, there is just this fluxxing field of sensation happening NOW. No objects or subjects acting on one another. 

[dwai]

On 8/11/2024 at 5:29 PM, steve said:

We call that thiglè nyagcig - single drop, referring to wholeness, non-duality. But for me, as a practitioner, I have to say ignorance is very real, as real as realization. I say that because both are present in my experience from time to time. To say either did not really exist would not be an accurate account of my experience. So I would go with can’t really say it does exist, doesn’t, both, neither… but easier and more direct for me to release, rest, and continue….

That is an excellent way to describe what is called "anirvachaniya"

 

Is a mirage "real"? It seems real to the eyes, the mind will think there is a body of water, but the intellect understands that there is no water really, it is just an optical illusion. So, the mirage "exists" so long as the conditions for the optical illusion to rise exist, and there is a beholder who sees it. But, it also "doesn't exist" because there is no reality to it beyond the optical illusion. Does it both "exist" and "not exist"? Yes, simultaneously. Can we say it neither exists nor not-exists? That is another way to look at it, simultaneously. 

 

The main thing to note is that the mirage appears as a body of water irrespective of how well the intellect understands its illusory nature. The beholder can treat it with delight, despair, or nonchalance, depending on the conditions it arises under. 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

(M)ind (large M) is the same as emptiness

 

Lol.