The Great Lie.

[an anarchist]

@Trailblazer
@Soapy
This isn't a Christianity vs Bahai thread ;-; I wasn't gonna say anything but... Just pointing it out

 

[wellwisher]

Suffering is inevitable

Above is The Great Lie.

At its core, my mission in life is to leave behind a philosophy that argues against this mindset.

Suffering is connected to ego wishes and desires, coming against reality and fate. If I wanted to be able to handle fire in my hand, while the laws of nature tell us that human skin is too sensitive for this high temperature; science fate, I will experience suffering.

If I desire a particular person for love, but they have other plans, this will lead to suffering.

If I put all my effort getting into medical school, and I see no other future as possible, and I do not get in, I will suffer. If I do the same, but have Plan B and even Plan C, and I do not get into medical school, the suffering will be less, and my desire will rebound faster.

If I live in poverty, and feel despair, but I do not have the drive to try to better myself, I will suffer my whole life. But if I start to suffer and feel despair, but decide to get a part time job, my suffering will moderate, since I feel a way out as a I get stronger.

Personally, I have always lived a simple and humble life, even though well educated at prestigious tech universities. I embraced the philosophy of Henry David Thoreau who wrote about his life at Walden Pond. I used to hang there during the summers; Live life deliberately.

To live in the now on humble means, while also minimizing suffering, I could not desire what was beyond my means, but learn to take pleasure in the simple things of life, that I could control; sun set. My brain was one such thing, I had, that was free to use and I could control, allowing years of exciting consciousness experiments and output production. It is a counter weight to life's doubts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Suffering is inevitable

Above is The Great Lie.

At its core, my mission in life is to leave behind a philosophy that argues against this mindset.

How is it a lie?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both. Ultimately though, suffering in general. That's the ultimate utopia goal.

The only way I can see to avoid or eliminate it is in two ways:

1. Create a matrix style world where we live in a utopian virtual reality where suffering simply isn't part of the programming
or
2. collective suicide of all sentient beings.

 

[Kathryn]

And here I was just thinking that suffering as a human is pretty much inevitable. If I had only had the right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, I would never have missed my loved ones who have died! Listen, to me, that's suffering. You can call it pain if you like, but it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I miss them, and some of them have been gone many years. I don't walk around crying. I don't miss them every single minute of every single day, but I would bet that they come across my memories every single day and I miss them when they do that.

 

[John D. Brey]

I was gonna think and elaborate but I accidentally clicked post thread lol. Guess I'll leave it at that for now.

. . . Could we say you're suffering the consequences of your accident?




John

 

[Muffled]

Suffering is inevitable

Above is The Great Lie.

At its core, my mission in life is to leave behind a philosophy that argues against this mindset.

I believe you have never lived in a trailer. I suffer from a lack of space.

 

[Muffled]

Things can change. I don't know about the origins of man or the universe really, but yes, it seems suffering has always been as long as there has been life to experience it. But things are always on a constant state of flux.

just because we suffer now does not mean we have to perpetually suffer.

I will grant that there is no suffering in Heaven. On earth it is inevitable.

 

[an anarchist]

I believe you have never lived in a trailer. I suffer from a lack of space.

Omg let me just say yes I have haha I feel you on that one. I just got out of a trailer park into a nicer joint, but I was in a little crap trailer for a while. The walls and ceilings weren't even properly connected, there was space between ;-;
I just found this to be an amusing and oddly specific assumption.

 

[Muffled]

Omg let me just say yes I have haha I feel you on that one. I just got out of a trailer park into a nicer joint, but I was in a little crap trailer for a while. The walls and ceilings weren't even properly connected, there was space between ;-;
I just found this to be an amusing and oddly specific assumption.

I have over 500 books in my library but only a few shelf spaces left. I may have to suffer through no longer accumulating books.

 

[an anarchist]

The only way I can see to avoid or eliminate it is in two ways:

1. Create a matrix style world where we live in a utopian virtual reality where suffering simply isn't part of the programming
or
2. collective suicide of all sentient beings.

1. From our current understanding, your first hypothetical situation is a valid hypothesis about how we can overcome the physicality of suffering. Though still in the realm of science fiction. But as I stated earlier in the thread, I do believe us to currently be... dumb, or rather, not fully evolved to our intellectual or "spiritual" potential. So the physicality of suffering and mortality seems and is inevitable. How will it be overcome? We cannot phathom.
2. This assumes no afterlife. Suffering may very well transcend death and follow us into the thereafter.

 

[PearlSeeker]

A first step is creating a philosophy which supports the idea that suffering can be eliminated. At least I think.

What about stoicism?

"Be like a headland: the waves beat against it continuously, but it stands fast and around it the boiling water dies down." (Marcus Aurelius)

 

[Dao Hao Now]

For simplicity's sake, can we please stick with the same terminology? These substitutions are essentially putting words in my mouth. Would you agree?

Trying to find mutual terminology is what I’m attempting to do.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.
This is why I ask if you concur when I propose different terminology.

The reason I’m seeking terminology that we can mutually agree on, is that the phrasing you are adhering to — "non-attachment" is somewhat vague, and trying to find contextual clues is apparently not adding up.
Your meaning doesn’t seem to track with my understanding of that phrase, which connotes “not focusing on” or maybe “not obsessing on”
This is why I previously suggested that we seem to be bordering on semantics.

Thus I’m striving to understand the concept of what you are calling “non-attachment to pain”, when you say things like “people tend to attach themselves to physical and emotional pain and create their own suffering.”

I read this as people tending to over focus on pain…..
Tending to concentrate exclusively too heavily on pain……
Tending to overly emphasize the pain….
Or as I suggested tending to dwell on the pain….
Thus exacerbating their perception of their pain which intensifies their suffering.
Does this come close to your meaning?
If not could you possibly rephrase it using different words than “attaching to”?

I said "realizing [the pain] isn't a part of me." I don't understand how that translates to "unnecessary dwelling on the pain." It certainly doesn't mean the same thing.

From my understanding the two phrases are very similar, which is why I asked if that tracked with what you meant.
“Unnecessarily dwelling on pain” means allowing pain to be what dominates your sense of your current state of being, of it becoming a main focus of how you asses yourself and your condition in life……
You don’t see how that could be perceived as assessing that the pain is part of you and your current state of being or condition in life?

She is in pain every day. Does she have to suffer from that pain every day? Does she need to remain attached to it and make the central focus on every moment of her being? Can she attach herself to that which she has gratitude? Or does she have focus on that pain identifying it as her very being?

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions here.
She does not “make it the central focus on every moment of her being.”
She is grateful to be alive, for the time she gets to spend with family and loved ones, and for many things in her life.
She does not “focus on that pain identifying it as her very being”.

However, she requires assistance in doing many things to get through each day and go about her life, and experiences and endures (suffers from) paralysis and diminished dexterity everyday…..it’s unavoidable.
She endures, experiences, undergoes (suffers) pain everyday…..it’s unavoidable.
There’s no kissing it and making it all better.

These are what I mean by “justified”….it being unavoidable — not an “option”, not a “choice”
It is now a constant unavoidable part of her being alive, and will be as long as she’s alive.
Does that qualify as being “part of her”?
I would say it does, since it is now part of her everyday existence.

However, she doesn’t wallow in it, or dwell on it, or focus on it……
She accepts it as a part of her “new normal”, an unavoidable condition of her being alive.
If she were to….if she allowed it to consume her outlook on life, to constantly seek pity, to allow it to prevent her from living her life to the fullest that circumstances allow….
That would be what I mean by “self induced”, which indicates that she would allow it to accentuate the grief to an overwhelming proportion.

She’s a very positive and upbeat person that looks on the bright side of things.
She would have probably gotten along very well with your daughter, (I’m sorry for your loss)
it sounds like they had a similar outlook on life.

However, the fact that she doesn’t let it overcome her, doesn’t focus on it, doesn’t let it define her, does not mean that she doesn’t endure it on a daily basis…..which is what the common understanding of “suffer” amounts to.

No. The gist wasn't ignoring the pain.

Again, you choose to use the term "ignore"

When I say “ignore”, I not suggesting “pretending it’s not there”;
I mean “not focusing on it”, not “allowing it more attention than it warrants”….
Which is as close to your attribution of “not attaching to it” that I can reckon.

Of course I realize this. And I also realize because something is common doesn't necessarily mean it's correct and is not subject to change.

Wouldn’t you agree that common usage is what determines what “correct” meanings are understood as on the whole?

It’s not any individual’s subjective preference or understanding and use that determines “correct” meaning, and that by intending a meaning that is not commonly understood by the general public leads to unnecessary confusion — especially if the context appears to support the common understanding.

You seem to be saying that “suffering” is solely, and exclusively the result of either conscious or subconscious self imposed reliance on acknowledging pain and failing to put in proper context, but allowing it’s acknowledgment to dominate ones sense of self.
That it is fully controllable, and possible to make the conscious chose of whether it’s experienced or not, in all cases.

You don’t seem to concede that it’s possible for someone to experience pain or negative conditions and identify that pain or negative conditions as “suffering” while also not allowing that pain or conditions to define them, but merely acknowledging that they are there.

If, as in the case of the woman I’ve described, somebody experiences pain, and/or as I previously mentioned, other negative conditions which are beyond their immediate control, yet doesn’t allow that pain or those conditions to define them or how they go about their life, yet you don’t see that as qualifying as “suffering”, how would you describe their experiencing that pain and/or negative conditions if not as “suffering”?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Trying to find mutual terminology is what I’m attempting to do.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.
This is why I ask if you concur when I propose different terminology.

The reason I’m seeking terminology that we can mutually agree on, is that the phrasing you are adhering to — "non-attachment" is somewhat vague, and trying to find contextual clues is apparently not adding up.
Your meaning doesn’t seem to track with my understanding of that phrase, which connotes “not focusing on” or maybe “not obsessing on”
This is why I previously suggested that we seem to be bordering on semantics.

Thus I’m striving to understand the concept of what you are calling “non-attachment to pain”, when you say things like “people tend to attach themselves to physical and emotional pain and create their own suffering.”

I read this as people tending to over focus on pain…..
Tending to concentrate exclusively too heavily on pain……
Tending to overly emphasize the pain….
Or as I suggested tending to dwell on the pain….
Thus exacerbating their perception of their pain which intensifies their suffering.
Does this come close to your meaning?
If not could you possibly rephrase it using different words than “attaching to”?

I'm not finding any connection in any thesaurus or dictionary that defines or corresponds attachment to "focus" or "obsessing." These terms mean entirely different things. Hence the reason I feel you are attempting to build a straw man by putting words into my mouth.

If you want to substitute terms, you can use "not emotionally connected to" or "not fixating on" if that better satisfies your terminological sensibilities.

From my understanding the two phrases are very similar, which is why I asked if that tracked with what you meant.
“Unnecessarily dwelling on pain” means allowing pain to be what dominates your sense of your current state of being, of it becoming a main focus of how you asses yourself and your condition in life……
You don’t see how that could be perceived as assessing that the pain is part of you and your current state of being or condition in life?

Based on what I said above, we can then say "having an unnecessary emotional connection to the pain" or "not fixating on the pain."

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions here.

Things aren't always what they seem. I made no assumptions. I live by the Four Agreements and go out of my way to not make assumptions. I asked questions. Big difference.

However, she requires assistance in doing many things to get through each day and go about her life, and experiences and endures (suffers from) paralysis and diminished dexterity everyday…..it’s unavoidable.
She endures, experiences, undergoes (suffers) pain everyday…..it’s unavoidable.
There’s no kissing it and making it all better.

However, she requires assistance in doing many things to get through each day and go about her life, and experiences and endures (suffers from) paralysis and diminished dexterity everyday…..it’s unavoidable.
She endures, experiences, undergoes (suffers) pain everyday…..it’s unavoidable.
There’s no kissing it and making it all better.

These are what I mean by “justified”….it being unavoidable — not an “option”, not a “choice”
It is now a constant unavoidable part of her being alive, and will be as long as she’s alive.
Does that qualify as being “part of her”?
I would say it does, since it is now part of her everyday existence.

However, she doesn’t wallow in it, or dwell on it, or focus on it……
She accepts it as a part of her “new normal”, an unavoidable condition of her being alive.
If she were to….if she allowed it to consume her outlook on life, to constantly seek pity, to allow it to prevent her from living her life to the fullest that circumstances allow….
That would be what I mean by “self induced”, which indicates that she would allow it to accentuate the grief to an overwhelming proportion.

She’s a very positive and upbeat person that looks on the bright side of things.
She would have probably gotten along very well with your daughter, (I’m sorry for your loss)
it sounds like they had a similar outlook on life.

However, the fact that she doesn’t let it overcome her, doesn’t focus on it, doesn’t let it define her, does not mean that she doesn’t endure it on a daily basis…..which is what the common understanding of “suffer” amounts to.

I know there are dictionaries that will define "endure" as suffering. I endure arthritic pain every day of my life. I don't suffer from it. Endure, for me, means to undergo or experience. I don't equate either one of those with suffering.

Thank you for your condolences. I would agree based on what you're saying here that they would have gotten along well.

Wouldn’t you agree that common usage is what determines what “correct” meanings are understood as on the whole?

It’s not any individual’s subjective preference or understanding and use that determines “correct” meaning, and that by intending a meaning that is not commonly understood by the general public leads to unnecessary confusion — especially if the context appears to support the common understanding.

I'm not arguing what is generally accepted as "correct." I'm expressing alternate options to living a life of suffering. In order to do this, one has to not cling so desperately to what is generally accepted and have an open mind.

You seem to be saying that “suffering” is solely, and exclusively the result of either conscious or subconscious self imposed reliance on acknowledging pain and failing to put in proper context, but allowing it’s acknowledgment to dominate ones sense of self.
That it is fully controllable, and possible to make the conscious chose of whether it’s experienced or not, in all cases.

You don’t seem to concede that it’s possible for someone to experience pain or negative conditions and identify that pain or negative conditions as “suffering” while also not allowing that pain or conditions to define them, but merely acknowledging that they are there.

If, as in the case of the woman I’ve described, somebody experiences pain, and/or as I previously mentioned, other negative conditions which are beyond their immediate control, yet doesn’t allow that pain or those conditions to define them or how they go about their life, yet you don’t see that as qualifying as “suffering”, how would you describe their experiencing that pain and/or negative conditions if not as “suffering”?

I've defined my terms and conveyed my ideas. If you don't accept them, that's also a choice. It takes a good deal of work in changing indoctrinated perspectives and understanding such philosophies. Arguing over terminology won't affect this change.

That said, I've spent a good deal of time attempting to clarify things with someone who simply wants to find fault in the philosophy rather than make changes in their life to take steps toward eliminating suffering. I'm not really interested in an argument in defending these ideas. I've shared my own personal experiences, and if you're more interested in more about applications of the philosophy through practice rather than a critical analysis, I'd be happy to continue this discussion. But if critical analysis is where you want to take this, I'm not inclined to continue, and I thank you for the discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2. This assumes no afterlife. Suffering may very well transcend death and follow us into the thereafter.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Trailblazer]

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Since when did you believe in the evidence for the afterlife?
Welcome to the club.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Since when did you believe in the evidence for the afterlife?
Welcome to the club.

There's a club?

 

[Trailblazer]

There's a club?

I was just joshing.
There's no club but there are many mansions in heaven. Haven't you heard?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I was just joshing.
There's no club but there are many mansions in heaven. Haven't you heard?

Dangit. I was hoping to join.

I didn't hear about the mansions, but rumor has it that they might have Mogen David there.
______________________________________________

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since when did you believe in the evidence for the afterlife?
Welcome to the club.

Not for the afterlife.

Rather the evidence suggests that at death is oblivion. Game over.
The same as before you were born.