People even suffer in the absence of pain in having become so attached to the pain when it was present, it remains something with which they identify even though it no longer exists. People suffer and do not even realize they are helping to manifest that suffering.
So essentially what I surmised seems to have been fairly accurate;
I’m under the impression that in your interpretation, “pain” is a physical sensation (possibly mental?) and that “suffering” is the act of over focusing on “pain”….
Would that be close?
However, it’s statements like this that I find somewhat perplexing…….
But non-attachment to that pain eliminates suffering.
And…
Pain is inevitable...suffering is optional.
After reading your parable,
@bobhikes stated;
“From your link I see your assumption being that you can avoid or ignore the pain.”
Which you answered with…
Where did I imply one avoid or ignore the pain?
Was that not the main gist?
That arrow #1 caused an instance of pain, and if you focus your attention on that pain (as opposed to
ignoring it)…..
by doing so you don’t pay sufficient attention to a second arrow allowing yourself to be hit by arrow #2 causing yet more pain resulting in suffering.
Thereby making
ignoring the pain of arrow #1 necessary to
avoid the further pain of arrow #2
leading to suffering?
When you say.,,
It all depends how one reacts to that pain. I can choose to focus on the pain and suffer, or simply observe the pain, realize it is temporary and not a part of me, and move past it.
It seems as though you are saying that unnecessarily
dwelling on pain is what constitutes
suffering in your view….
would that be correct?
In a case similar to the child with the scraped
knee that’s fine and dandy.
(Though you do acknowledge that the child “suffered” — at least for a period of time.)
Surely you realize that not all incidents are so trivial.
For instance, what has become known as “One October” was a mass murder event in Las Vegas in 2017, where a guy opened fire on a music festival from the 32nd floor of a hotel across the street.
I personally know several people involved in that incident.
One was a woman that was hit and nearly died.
Instead she is now permanently disabled with paralysis and in constant pain every day.
Obviously this
is not a “temporary” condition and is now part of her daily life.
Would you agree; the fact she cannot simply “move past it”, would mean her suffering is not “optional”?
In post #96 where I misattributed you statement of suffering being attachment to pain as “attachment to suffering”, I wonder if you read it through while considering my correction from post #100?
The corrected version would then read;
Granted, the human mind, being as it is, has the capability of perceiving things which do not physically exist in reality and augmenting those things that do, with perceived features that they may in reality lack. In other words making more of it than there is.
And in these cases can “suffer” more than is necessary.
Would this be what you mean by “attachment to pain being suffering”?
And……
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t cases where the “suffering” is justified in reality.
Would acknowledging this sort of thing constitute “attachment to pain being suffering) in your view?
Thus I summarized;
So it seems to me the key is not to ignore either pain or subsequent “suffering” but to as best as possible moderate “augmented” influence and only as closely as possible adhere to the “justified” input.
Would you agree?
To me however, this is only a recipe for avoiding unnecessary self imposed suffering, (good advice in my opinion) but in no way renders “suffering” as solely self imposed….
i.e. “optional”.
It may not be augmented or intensified but doesn’t eliminate the underlying justified suffering.
“Suffering” also, and probably most often, refers to “enduring”. (generally relating to a negative stimulus not only restricted to pain — but also often imposed or inescapable conditions)
Examples are “suffering” due to…..
malnutrition, dehydration, poverty, prejudice, sexual abuse, damages from natural and manmade disasters, economic collapse, etc.
Some may be fleeting in nature; some may be far more lasting and/or permanent, but often not by “choice”.
How do these sort of things fit into your theory of
suffering being a “reaction that includes attachment to and focus on pain”?
And “suffering is optional”, along with “one can make the conscious choice to suffer or not suffer as a result.”?
Where you say “people tend to conflate the two or think that one cannot exist without the other”, surely you realize that in common usage the two are often mentioned together — particularly when speaking of the physical variety — so it is not unexpected that they are closely related; not necessarily that they are dependent on the other.
