The nature of Suffering

[Arcanum]

Since almost everybody, regardless of belief, is trying to escape suffering, maybe it's useful to specifically explore the nature of it and why it happens and whether it must happen.

Mind is complex, and so in the same way that it creates suffering, it also sometimes tries to deny it's own suffering in the attempt to solve the problem, but the goal is not to try to convince mind identified individuals that they are suffering while they're saying they are not, so this is for folks that acknowledge their own suffering.

The nature of mind is to test such ideas by imagining the worst case scenario and checking to see if it still holds true, but as long as the opposing view is held, this extreme scenario is just going to make the view appear to be extremely true. This is the same process of projection that leads to resistance to begin with, and so the suggestion is to avoid those extreme views.

Fundamentally, suffering is not caused by events, but rather our interpretation of events. Specifically, the resistance created by projecting the personal 'me' into what is or isn't occurring, and concluding that it should not be what it is.

If, in fact, this is true, that suffering is not happening 'out there' but rather 'in here', then clearly there is the potential for that suffering to end.

[nothuman]

Hi A
In a thread that will no doubt attract 1000 plus postings I simply wanted to post first. That eases MY suffering a tad....

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by nothuman

Hi A
In a thread that will no doubt attract 1000 plus postings I simply wanted to post first. That eases MY suffering a tad....

Well, whoever that is in your avatar is the most adorable thing I've seen in ages, so thanks for that non-suffering too. Hehe.

[nothuman]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Well, whoever that is in your avatar is the most adorable thing I've seen in ages, so thanks for that non-suffering too. Hehe.

Well this surely is a nice cognitive non suffering start to the thread and I'm guessing your not a big Disney Channel fan hahaha

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by nothuman

Well this surely is a nice cognitive non suffering start to the thread and I'm guessing your not a big Disney Channel fan hahaha

No I haven't watched TV regularly in decades, so unless she's a mouskateer, I'm clueless. Hehe.

[downthesun]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If, in fact, this is true, that suffering is not happening 'out there' but rather 'in here', then clearly there is the potential for that suffering to end.

I couldn't agree more. To me the only real spiritual goal worth realising is the complete cessation of suffering. To no longer suffer means you see things the way they really are. You're happiness and wellbeing are no longer dependent on conditions such as health, prosperity and sensual pleasure. This unconditional happiness is the highest happiness humans can realise. That's why the Buddha's teaching has been so important in my life. The Buddha only taught suffering and it's end. What could be more important than that?

[bodi]

so, if your arm gets chopped off in a mill accident, then you're not suffering because of the event, but rather, your interpretation of the event......

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by bodi

so, if your arm gets chopped off in a mill accident, then you're not suffering because of the event, but rather, your interpretation of the event......

Does pain equal suffering?

If your body is in pain, does it mean that you need to suffer, inevitably?

[Cheese Consumer]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Fundamentally, suffering is not caused by events, but rather our interpretation of events. Specifically, the resistance created by projecting the personal 'me' into what is or isn't occurring, and concluding that it should not be what it is.

If, in fact, this is true, that suffering is not happening 'out there' but rather 'in here', then clearly there is the potential for that suffering to end.

What is your definition of suffering please?

To say that suffering is a matter of opinion is a little bit 'middle class' isn't it? Or have I misunderstood your statement.

Ending suffering is actually not so difficult. All that is required is for a group to transition from subconscious/reactive control to higher mind states and all the suffering of that group ceases to exist. It doesn't matter how big or small that group is. Not exactly an easy task either given that it hasn't been achieved in the last few thousand years but still, it is very doable.

CC

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Since almost everybody, regardless of belief, is trying to escape suffering, maybe it's useful to specifically explore the nature of it and why it happens and whether it must happen.

I'm not so sure 'escape' is the correct word here. Suffering in one way or another, is a most necessary, even highly conducive aspect of our being alive. No-one likes any of it for a second, yet escape from it? That's not only impossible but without it personal evolution would entirely stagnate. ('evolution' in this instance means growth)

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Mind is complex, and so in the same way that it creates suffering, it also sometimes tries to deny it's own suffering in the attempt to solve the problem, but the goal is not to try to convince mind identified individuals that they are suffering while they're saying they are not, so this is for folks that acknowledge their own suffering.

So what is the antithesis of a 'mind identified' individual? Are you suggesting that 'mind identified' individuals live their entire lives in a complete denial, a virtual catatonia by choice, with regards their pain/suffering?

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The nature of mind is to test such ideas by imagining the worst case scenario and checking to see if it still holds true, but as long as the opposing view is held, this extreme scenario is just going to make the view appear to be extremely true. This is the same process of projection that leads to resistance to begin with, and so the suggestion is to avoid those extreme views.

Are you saying that a 'mind identified' individual avoids suffering by imagining a scenario that looks far worse than his own at that moment, so therefore works/aims to avoid this even 'worse case scenario' through his (next) choice?

If so, isn't that what we all do (or should) by projecting into the future the effects/repercussions of our intended actions in order to make choice to enact the more appropriate - whatever that means to us at that moment?

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Fundamentally, suffering is not caused by events, but rather our interpretation of events. Specifically, the resistance created by projecting the personal 'me' into what is or isn't occurring, and concluding that it should not be what it is.

This is according our natural default setting, where our preference of inclination is according the subjective - that is; what is wrong/insufficient/inappropriate and therefore against what is right 'for me', rather than the more objective perspective - perhaps towards what can I learn/how can I benefit from these particulars at hand, in order to grow/evolve as an individual.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If, in fact, this is true, that suffering is not happening 'out there' but rather 'in here', then clearly there is the potential for that suffering to end.

Relating to the 'in here' suffering, I doubt we could possibly come close to 'ending' it, until and unless we first learn to embrace, indeed be thankful for all the suffering through 'my' life, all of which has been effectually 'my' evolution towards the place where 'I' can entertain the concept of releasing my grip on it, based as it is on pain and (to some extent) anger, as well as an ongoing need for retribution.

[raykilleen]

SPIRITUAL WARNING; The internet and beyond is littered with spiritual gurus hanging out their virtual neon shingle “CURE SUFFERING”, don’t fall for it, it may adversely affect your Spiritual Well-Being.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The nature of mind is to test such ideas by imagining the worst case scenario and checking to see if it still holds true, but as long as the opposing view is held, this extreme scenario is just going to make the view appear to be extremely true. This is the same process of projection that leads to resistance to begin with, and so the suggestion is to avoid those extreme views.

Fundamentally, suffering is not caused by events, but rather our interpretation of events. Specifically, the resistance created by projecting the personal 'me' into what is or isn't occurring, and concluding that it should not be what it is.

I find this to be unclear , I believe because of the wording, not the concept. Would you care to rephrase or perhaps an example?

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If, in fact, this is true, that suffering is not happening 'out there' but rather 'in here', then clearly there is the potential for that suffering to end.

“SO MUCH TROUBLE IN THE WORLD”~B.M. and if it’s to be lessened it will happen one person at a time, historically religions and governments seem to cause more not less suffering because it’s ‘out there’.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Relating to the 'in here' suffering, I doubt we could possibly come close to 'ending' it, until and unless we first learn to embrace, indeed be thankful for all the suffering through 'my' life, all of which has been effectually 'my' evolution towards the place where 'I' can entertain the concept of releasing my grip on it, based as it is on pain and (to some extent) anger, as well as an ongoing need for retribution.

I think this here is key. When we can embrace and even love the suffering because we can see it as a vehicle TO clarity rather than merely an absence of clarity (of course it is both, but our focus changes when we can see it as the vehicle).....then even the tiniest bit of emotional angst serves to indicate us of an attachment...that something is being judged...we are NEEDING reality to be different than how it is presently appearing in order to be at peace.

[Angela]

I think that "loving and being grateful for suffering" is helpful when you notice that the suffering you've done is a function of your choices, both conscious and unconscious, and that it's part of the pathway that has led you to where you are in your life, right here and right now.

Where it's kind of dumb, in my view, is when people are in love with their current suffering in the sense that they see it as a positive resource, something they want to use on a continual basis (either consciously or unconsciously).

Suffering, the way I see it, is postponing getting or refusing to get the learnings from pain that would allow it to go on its way having done its job (which is to deliver those learnings).

I'm talking about emotional suffering here, not lingering and intense physical pain -- although that's sometimes caused or exacerbated by emotional suffering and can be a good red flag for a place to look for self-inquiry that might make a big difference.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by bodi

so, if your arm gets chopped off in a mill accident, then you're not suffering because of the event, but rather, your interpretation of the event......

That's probably gonna hurt for awhile, a lot - physical suffering. But if two years later, you're still feeling agony and depression, and you're miserable because of all the choice, freedom, opportunity and joy that got cremated along with your arm, that suffering can be disconnected by shifting your interpretation of the event, and everything leading up to it, and everything that came after.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by downthesun

I couldn't agree more. To me the only real spiritual goal worth realising is the complete cessation of suffering. To no longer suffer means you see things the way they really are. You're happiness and wellbeing are no longer dependent on conditions such as health, prosperity and sensual pleasure. This unconditional happiness is the highest happiness humans can realise. That's why the Buddha's teaching has been so important in my life. The Buddha only taught suffering and it's end. What could be more important than that?

Yes, that's the goal, disconnecting happiness from all conditions. To begin with, there isn't even a set of conditions that will result in permanent happiness for anyone. Happiness isn't the result of getting what we want, but rather the momentary end of the need, or sense of lack. This is the ending of a movement TOWARD something, and since all of experience is a movement, there is no static set of conditions that we call happiness. This is why we sometimes say it's the journey and not the destination.

Experience is movement and all destinations are static, so as soon as one goal is accomplished, we start looking for another movement, and every goal is based on lack, so this new movement brings unhappiness again. Happiness becomes the carrot on the stick that keeps moving as we move and we never arrive at this place we call happiness. We DO keep experiencing momentary happiness, which keeps the search going, but we conclude that it's caused by the conditions, and so we keep looking for the right conditions.

Even if it were true that conditions could cause permanent happiness, all conditions change and even the threat of change compromises that happiness.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by bodi

so, if your arm gets chopped off in a mill accident, then you're not suffering because of the event, but rather, your interpretation of the event......

Fundamentally, yes, but what you did here is why I said this there:

The nature of mind is to test such ideas by imagining the worst case scenario and checking to see if it still holds true, but as long as the opposing view is held, this extreme scenario is just going to make the view appear to be extremely true. This is the same process of projection that leads to resistance to begin with, and so the suggestion is to avoid those extreme views.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Cheese Consumer

What is your definition of suffering please?

To say that suffering is a matter of opinion is a little bit 'middle class' isn't it? Or have I misunderstood your statement.

Obviously it's a matter of 'opinion' since it's subjective. What causes suffering to one may be enjoyed by another.

Ending suffering is actually not so difficult. All that is required is for a group to transition from subconscious/reactive control to higher mind states and all the suffering of that group ceases to exist. It doesn't matter how big or small that group is. Not exactly an easy task either given that it hasn't been achieved in the last few thousand years but still, it is very doable.

Dunno what that's all about, so I'll just suggest that transcending suffering isn't a group effort.

[Beingist]

Question:

Attachments are an example of suffering, yes?

Are values a form of attachment?

[Arcanum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanum
The nature of mind is to test such ideas by imagining the worst case scenario and checking to see if it still holds true, but as long as the opposing view is held, this extreme scenario is just going to make the view appear to be extremely true. This is the same process of projection that leads to resistance to begin with, and so the suggestion is to avoid those extreme views.

Fundamentally, suffering is not caused by events, but rather our interpretation of events. Specifically, the resistance created by projecting the personal 'me' into what is or isn't occurring, and concluding that it should not be what it is.

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

I find this to be unclear , I believe because of the wording, not the concept. Would you care to rephrase or perhaps an example?

Bodi gave a perfect example:

so, if your arm gets chopped off in a mill accident, then you're not suffering because of the event, but rather, your interpretation of the event......

I wasn't trying to say anything in that paragraph about the cause of suffering, just trying to mitigate the most obvious distractions.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Question:

Attachments are an example of suffering, yes?

Are values a form of attachment?

I see attachment as more being the cause of suffering....although I suppose it could be argued that to be attached or to believe we NEED something, IS itself a form of suffering.

If values result in a NEED that must be fulfilled in order to remain in peace...we've definitely got an attachment to them.

We can have certain values without being attached to them.

Wherever a NEED exists (ie; we feel we require to remain in peace) an attachment exists.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

I see attachment as more being the cause of suffering....although I suppose it could be argued that to be attached or to believe we NEED something, IS itself a form of suffering.

If values result in a NEED that must be fulfilled in order to remain in peace...we've definitely got an attachment to them.

Wherever a NEED exists (ie; we feel we require to remain in peace) an attachment exists.

I agree, but don't values reflect that there's some kind of need, by definition?

[inri]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I agree, but don't values reflect that there's some kind of need, by definition?

Well, here we go again..but....as I see it, a value could be a 'preference'...it all depends on the strength of how MUCH I value that thing.

If I can be at peace regardless of that which I value presenting or not, then, no attachment.

For example; I value kindness and courteous behavior in human interactions, however, I will not fall out of peace if someone cuts me off in traffic or if they don't hold a door open for me....or even if they treat me like crap.

I don't NEED for people to be kind to me in order for me to experience abiding peace...but it's still kind of nice when they are kind.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

Well, here we go again..but....as I see it, a value could be a 'preference'...it all depends on the strength of how MUCH I value that thing.

If I can be at peace regardless of that which I value presenting or not, then, no attachment.

For example; I value kindness and courteous behavior in human interactions, however, I will not fall out of peace if someone cuts me off in traffic or if they don't hold a door open for me....or even if they treat me like crap.

I don't NEED for people to be kind to me in order for me to experience abiding peace...but it's still kind of nice when they are kind.

Oh, right, I should have figured that you would have related 'values' to 'preferences'.

Well, I suppose as long as one isn't suffering (or fostering suffering through the proselytization of 'values' or 'preferences'), I can see having values isn't a problem (at least not for me ).

[bodi]

pain   [peyn] Show IPA
noun
1.
physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.
2.
a distressing sensation in a particular part of the body: a back pain.
3.
mental or emotional suffering or torment: I am sorry my news causes you such pain.

[bodi]

suf·fer   [suhf-er] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to undergo or feel pain or distress: The patient is still suffering.
2.
to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss: One's health suffers from overwork. The business suffers from lack of capital.
3.
to undergo a penalty, as of death: The traitor was made to suffer on the gallows.

[Prinie]

There's this really great quote by Maya Angelou.

"Children's talent to endure comes from their ignorance of alternatives."

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by bodi

so, if your arm gets chopped off in a mill accident, then you're not suffering because of the event, but rather, your interpretation of the event......

Pain is different than suffering in this situation the reason one would suffer is because you were attached to your arm, hey there’s a pun.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

Pain is different than suffering in this situation the reason one would suffer is because you were attached to your arm, hey there’s a pun.

Non-attachment is a good thingy, right?